CASE NAME (YEAR)

G.R. No. XXX

J. XXX

DOCTRINE/S:

CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: e.g. Petition for

certiorari under Rule 45

FACTS: Bullet points or short paragraphs

ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT: e.g.

action for specific performance

ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:

How did the defendant raise his or her contentions?
What are contentions?

*contentions of plaintiff and defendant should be

related to the topic*

RTC RULING: Keep it short - IN FAVOR OF XXX.

This is because XXXX

CA RULING: AFFIRMED/MODIFIED/REVERSED.
This is because XXXX

ISSUE: Whether XXX

RULING: Yes, XXXX

OTHER NOTES:

---
Jurisdiction conferred by law not by agreement of
the parties
REPUBLIC v. BANTIGUE (2012)
G.R. No. 162322
J. Sereno
DOCTRINE/S: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It cannot
be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the
omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. Lack of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage in the proceeding.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS: Bantigue Point Development Corporation filed
with the RTC an application for original registration of
title over a parcel of land with a total assessed value of
P14,920.00.
The Republic filed its Opposition to the application
while the case is still with the RTC.
The RTC Clerk of Court transmitted motu proprio the
records of the case to the MTC of San Juan because
the assessed value is less than P100,000.00.
In the MTC, Bantigue presented Tax Declarations, a
Deed of Absolute Sale in its favor, and a Certification
from the DENR-CENRO stating that the lot in question
is an inalienable and disposable land. The MTC
granted Bantigue’s application.
The Republic appealed the same before the CA but
the court held that the Republic is estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the lower court as it actively
participated in the proceedings without questioning the
jurisdiction of the court.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT: An
application for original registration of title over parcel of
land
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Opposition was filed before the RTC but the case was
later on transmitted to the MTC.
Republic raised its contentions as to the jurisdiction of
the MTC in the CA through appeal.
MTC RULING: Granted the application of Bantigue
CA RULING: AFFIRMED the decision of MTC and
held that it had jurisdiction over Bantigue’s application.
ISSUE: Whether the Republic is estopped from raising
the issue of jurisdiction in this case?
RULING: No, the Republic is not estopped from
raising the issue of jurisdiction in this case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only
by the Constitution or by law. It cannot be acquired
through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the
parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.
Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage in the
proceeding.
The Court held that the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,
is an exceptional case. This is where the Court held
that the parties can no longer raise the issue on
jurisdiction because they have been barred by laches.
The parties in this case took them 15 years to question
the jurisdiction.
Such circumstance is not present in this case. Here,
the Republic filed its Opposition before the RTC but
the Republic could not have questioned the delegated
jurisdiction of the MTC because the case is not yet in
that court. When the case was transferred in the MTC,
the Republic did not file any pleadings nor requested
affirmative from that court. On appeal, the Republic
immediately raised the issue of jurisdiction. Therefore,
the Republic is not barred by estoppel. The Republic
has not displayed such unreasonable failure or neglect
that would lead the Court to conclude that it has
abandoned or declined to assert its right to question
the lower court’s jurisdiction.
OTHER NOTES:
MTC has jurisdiction
The MTC has delegated jurisdiction over lands with
value not exceeding P100,000.00 as provided in the
Judiciary Reorganization Act. This is provided in
Bantigue’s tax declaration.
The value of the property can be provided in an
affidavit of the claimant, agreement of the respective
parties, and tax declarations. There is no affidavit and
no multiple claimants in this case.
Determined by the law in force at the time of
commencement
People of the Philippines vs. CA, G.R. No. 154557,
February 13, 2008
Doctrine: Where a court acquired jurisdiction over
an action, its jurisdiction continues to the final
conclusion of the case. Such jurisdiction is not
affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction
over such dispute in another court or tribunal
unless the statute provides for retroactivity.
Case filed before the Supreme Court: Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65
Facts:
● Private respondents Rico and Rickson Lipao
was accused of violating Sec. 68 of PD 705,
as amended by EO 277 and it was tried before
the RTC. The offense charged is punishable
under Art. 309 of the RPC. The penalty is
prision correccional in its medium period from
2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2
months while the maximum period is
imprisonment from 4 years, 2 months and 1
day to 6 years
● Before the RTC rendered its judgement, R.A.
7691 was enacted. The said law expanded the
exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTCs, MTCs,
and MCTCs in criminal cases to cover all
offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years. (Before MTC has
jurisdiction to offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 4 years and 2
months)
● The RTC finds the private respondents guilty
of the offense charged. Upon appeal, the CA
reversed the decision of the lower court and
dismissed the criminal case on lack of
jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to the newly
enacted law, RA 7691.
● Thus, the petitioner filed the Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65,
Issue: W/N the RTC retained jurisdiction over the
case despite the enactment of R.A. 7691 which
expanded the exclusive jurisdiction of the MeTCs,
MTCs, and MCTCs (Yes)
Ruling:
● The Court held that as a general rule, the
jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is
to be determined by the law in force at the
time of the institution of the action. Where a
court has already obtained and is exercising
jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction
to proceed to the final determination of the
cause is not affected by new legislation
placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in
another tribunal. The exception to the rule is
where the statute expressly provides or is
construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its
enactment.
● In this case, RA 7691 did not provide any
retroactive provisions to criminal cases. Since
jurisdiction over the criminal case attached
upon the filing of the information, then the RTC
is empowered and mandated to try and decide
said case notwithstanding a subsequent
change in the jurisdiction over criminal cases
of the same nature under a new statute. The
rule is settled that jurisdiction continues until
the court has done all that it can do to exercise
that jurisdiction unless the law provides
otherwise.
Sps. Estacion vs. Hon. Secretary of DAR, G.R. No.
163361, March 12, 2014, J. Reyes
DOCTRINE/S: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Sps. Estacion initially filed a petition for just
compensation with the RTC of Negros
Oriental, acting as a Special Agrarian Court
(SAC), as owners of two parcels of land.
● According to the petitioners, their properties
were placed under the coverage of the
Operation Land Transfer program of PD No.
27 and were forcefully taken without
compensation so they filed this action.
● Instead of filing an answer, public respondents
DAR and LBP filed a Motion to Dismiss,
claiming that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the case.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT: The
petitioners filed a petition for the determination of just
compensation or to restore to them possession of the
properties, with damages.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: The
DAR contended that the SAC correctly dismissed the
case for lack of jurisdiction as it does not have any
power to nullify the foreclosure order, and that such
issue was vested in the RTC in the exercise of its
general jurisdiction.
Plaintiff: The motion to dismiss filed by the
respondents with the SAC are prohibited pleadings
under PD 946 and should not have been given
cognizance by the SAC.
RTC RULING: Ruled in favor of the defendant
because SAC having limited jurisdiction, does not have
jurisdiction to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings.
CA RULING: Affirmed the dismissal of the case for
lack of merit.
ISSUE: Whether SAC has jurisdiction to determine just
compensation.

RULING: Yes, SAC has jurisdiction to determine just
compensation.
● It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined by the law in force at the
time of the commencement of the action.
● At the time the petitioners filed their case for
just compensation, P.D. No. 946, which
reorganized the Court of Agrarian Relations
(CAR) and streamlined its procedure, has
already been superseded by R.A. No. 6657,
which created the SACs.
● Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly
provides that the SACs shall exercise original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for
the determination of just compensation to
landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal
offenses under said Act.
● In this case, the RTC of Negros Oriental was
acting as a SAC. The Rules of Court,
therefore, was the rule of procedure applicable
to the cases filed before it.
● Under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, and even
under the present 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, a motion to dismiss
is not a prohibited pleading.
OTHER NOTES: Section 17 of P.D. No. 946, which
states:
Sec. 17. Pleadings; Hearings; Limitation on
Postponements. The defendant shall file his answer
to the complaint (not a motion to dismiss), within a
non-extendible period of ten (10) days from service of
summons, and the plaintiff shall file his answer to the
counterclaim, if there be any, within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days.
Determined by the allegations of the complaint or
other initiatory pleading
Mendoza v. Germino (2010)
G.R. No. 165676
Brion, J.
DOCTRINES
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter is based
on the allegations in the complaint. It is
determined exclusively by the Constitution and
the law, and cannot be conferred by the
voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or
acquired through or waived, enlarged, or
diminished by the acquiescence of the court.
● Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or
theories set up by the defendant in an answer
or a motion to dismiss
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Jose and Aurora Mendoza (plaintiffs, for
brevity) asserted that they were the registered
owners of the subject property, and that
Narciso entered the property without their
consent. Moreover, they claimed that Narciso
refused to vacate the property despite their
demands.
● On the other hand, Narciso claimed that his
brother Benigno was the plaintiff’s agricultural
lessee and that he was only there to help in
the cultivation.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT
● The plaintiffs filed a complaint for forcible entry
with the MTC of Sta. Rosa, which was
remanded to the DARAB.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
● Efren Bernardo was the agricultural lessee of
the subject property, and that Benigno
unlawfully entered said property.
● He possessed the property and appropriated
the fruits produced despite the plaintiffs’
repeated demands to vacate the land.
● They later on discovered that Benigno
transferred the possession of the property to
Narciso, who also refused to vacate the land
and appropriated the produce to himself.
● The plaintiffs further alleged that the
respondents were able to harvest around
13,000 canvas of palay from the time they
possessed the property until they filed the
complaint.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANT:
● Narciso claimed that the plaintiffs do not have
the over the property. They alleged that the
plaintiffs sold the land to Benigno.
● He further asserted that Benigno already
made a partial payment, but the plaintiffs
refused to accept the balance and execute the
deed of conveyance.
● He contended that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the case since the issues were on
ownership and possession.
PARAD RULING
● PARAD ruled that the Germinos were
usurpers of the property since they were
unable to prove that Benigno was the
agricultural lessee. Hence, the PARAD
 ordered them to pay 500 canvas of palay as
actual damages.
DARAB RULING
● The DARAB affirmed the PARAD’s ruling.
● It held that it acquired jurisdiction over the
amended complaint since the allegations
sufficiently spelled out an agrarian dispute.
CA RULING
● The CA ruled that the DARAB did not have
jurisdiction over the case since the material
allegations and the reliefs sought made up a
case of forcible entry, not an agrarian dispute.
ISSUE:
Whether the MTC has jurisdiction over the case
RULING: YES, the MTC of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija
have jurisdiction over the case.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
by the allegations in the complaint, and is
determined exclusively by the Constitution and the
law.
● BP 129, as amended by RA No. 7691 states
that the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. On the other hand, the DARAB has
primary and exclusive jurisdiction over
agrarian disputes involving the implementation
of the CARP and other agrarian laws as well
as their IRRs.
● In this case, the allegations made and reliefs
soughts by the petitioners before the MTC
clearly spelled out a case of forcible entry.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or theories
set by the defendant in an answer or a motion to
dismiss, or else it would heavily depend on the
notions of the defendant.
● The MTC maintained jurisdiction over the case
to determine whether it had jurisdiction to
dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits
even if Narciso alleged his tenancy.
● The MTC erroneously referred the case to the
DARAB since the former has the duty under
the Rules of Court to conduct a preliminary
investigation and to receive evidence to
determine if there is a tenancy relationship.
● It must be noted that the amended complaint
did not confer jurisdiction to the DARAB.
● Since there was no allegation of a tenancy
relation between the parties, the action for
recovery of possession of real property was
within the jurisdiction of regular courts.
Sante v. Claravall (2010)
G.R. No. 173915
J. Villarama, Jr.
DOCTRINES:
● Where the claim for damages is the main
cause of action, or one of the causes of action,
the total amount of all damages claimed,
regardless of kind and nature, should be used
as basis for determining which court has
jurisdiction.
● The other forms of damages being claimed
(such as exemplary damages, attorney’s fees,
and litigation expenses) are not merely
incidental to or consequences of the main
action. Rather, they constitute the primary
relief prayed for in the complaint. Thus, the
claim for all forms of damages shall be used
as basis to determine jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 filed by Irene and Reynaldo Sante
FACTS:
● Vita Kalashian (Kalashian) was inside the
police station of Natividad, Pangasinan.
● While there, and in the presence of other
persons, Irene Sante uttered offensive and
insulting words against Albert Gacusan
(Gacusan) – “How many rounds of sex did you
have last night with your boss, Bert? You
fucking bitch!”
● Gacusan is Kalashian’s friend and one of
Kalashian’s security guards. He was detained
at the police station for being a suspect in
killing Kalashian’s relative.
● It was also alleged that Irene and Reynaldo
Sante (the Santes) went around Natividad,
Pangasinan, telling people that Kalashian was
protecting the suspects of the said killing.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE RTC OF BAGUIO
CITY:
● Kalashian filed a complaint for damages
against the Santes before the RTC of Baguio
City.
● She prayed for moral damages of
P300,000.00; exemplary damages of
P50,000.00; attorney’s fees of P50,000.00;
litigation expenses of P20,000.00; and costs of
suit (total of P420,000.00).
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE SANTES:
● The Santes then filed a motion to dismiss
Kalashian’s complaint for damages.
 ● They claimed that it was the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC), and not the RTC, that
had jurisdiction.
● The claim for moral damages, which is the
main action, was not more than the
jurisdictional amount of P300,000.00.
● The claim for exemplary damages, being
discretionary, should be excluded in
computing the total claim.
CONTENTIONS OF KALASHIAN:
● Kalashian claimed that the nature of her
complaint is for recovery of damages.
● Thus, the totality of the claim for damages
(including exemplary damages, attorney's
fees, and litigation expenses), should be
included in determining jurisdiction.
● The total claim being P420,000.00, the RTC
has jurisdiction.
RTC FIRST RULING:
● The RTC denied the Santes’ motion to
dismiss.
● It ruled that Kalashian’s total claim amounted
to P420,000.00. This was above the
jurisdictional amount for MTCCs outside Metro
Manila.
● Thus, jurisdiction properly belonged to the
RTC.
CA FIRST RULING:
● The Santes then filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition before the CA.
● The CA ruled in favor of the Santes.
● The case clearly falls under the jurisdiction of
the MTCC, as the allegations show that
Kalashian was seeking to recover moral
damages of P300,000.00.
● This amount was well within the jurisdictional
amount of the MTCC.
● The totality of claim rule used for determining
which court had jurisdiction could not be
applied in this case, because Kalashian’s
claim for exemplary damages was not a
separate and distinct cause of action from her
claim of moral damages. Rather, it was merely
incidental to it.
● Thus, the prayer for exemplary damages
should be excluded in computing the total
claim.
RTC SECOND RULING:
● Meanwhile, Kalashian and her husband filed
an amended complaint, increasing the claim
for moral damages to P1,000,000.00.
● To this, the Santes again filed another motion
to dismiss.
● However, the RTC again denied the Santes’
motion to dismiss.
CA SECOND RULING:
● The Santes again filed another petition for
certiorari and prohibition before the CA.
● This time, the CA ruled in favor of Kalashian
(denied the Santes’ petition).
● It ruled that the claims for exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees are not merely incidental to
the main cause, and thus, they should be
included in the computation of the total claim.
ISSUE: W/N the total amount of all damages claimed,
regardless of kind and nature, should be used as basis
for determining which court has jurisdiction, in cases
where the claim for damages is the main cause of
action or is one of the causes of action
RULING: Yes. Where the claim for damages is the
main cause of action, or is one of the causes of
action, the total amount of all damages claimed
should be used as basis.
● Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the
facts alleged in the complaint, since the
complaint comprises a concise statement of
the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's
causes of action.
● Administrative Circular No. 09-94 provides that
in cases where the claim for damages is the
main cause of action, or one of the causes of
action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of
the court.
● Kalashian’s complaint is for the recovery of
damages for the alleged malicious acts of the
Santes. The complaint principally sought an
award of moral and exemplary damages, and
for attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
● Based on the allegations of Kalashian’s
complaint, the main action is for damages.
Hence, the other forms of damages being
claimed (exemplary damages, attorney’s fees,
and litigation expenses) are not merely
incidental to or consequences of the main
action. Rather, they constitute the primary
relief prayed for in the complaint.
Indophil Textile Mills vs. Adviento (2014)
G.R. No. 171212
Peralta, J.
DOCTRINE/S:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon
the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of
w/n the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim
asserted therein, which is a matter resolved only after
and as a result of trial.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Indophil Textile hired respondent
Engr. Adviento as Civil Engineer to maintain
Indophil’s Bulacan facilities.
2. Adviento was later diagnosed with Chronic
Poly Sinusitis and Allergic Rhinitis; he was
advised to steer clear of textile dust.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Adviento filed a complaint for damages with the RTC
(Aparri, Cagayan) alleging that he contracted the
occupational disease due to Indophil’s gross
negligence and failure to provide him with a safe,
healthy and workable environment.
He alleges that the health hazards are persistent
complaints of all workers of Indophil, and that
petitioner ignored respondent’s suggestions to relocate
the engineering office.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Indophil filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds:
1) That the RTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter because it falls under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter (LA) under the Labor Code.
2) That the respondent filed another action
pending with the NLRC with the same parties
and for the same cause of action.
RTC RULING: Ruled in favor of Adviento, ruling that
Indophil’s failure to provide its employees with a safe,
healthy and workable environment is negligence on its
part, hence a quasi-delict and falls within RTC’s
jurisdiction. Also, the complaint before the NLRC has a
different cause of action-- illegal dismissal.
MR with RTC also denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA.
CA RULING: Certiorari petition dismissed for lack of
merit.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint filed by Adviento
RULING: Yes, it does. While the acts complained of by
Adviento appear to constitute matters involving
employer-employee relations (since Adviento used to
be Indophil’s Civil Engineer), the Court found that
respondent’s claim for damages is grounded on
Indophil’s gross negligence to provide a safe, healthy,
and workable environment for its employees; the claim
for damages is not one for back wages nor is it based
on a Labor Code violation. This is a case of quasi-
delict.
The Complaint itself enumerates acts and/or omissions
of Indophil relative to the conditions in the workplace,
such as excessive flying textile dust in the workplace,
no effort to minimize the dust, etc.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
upon the allegations made in the complaint,
irrespective of w/n the plaintiff is entitled to
recover upon the claim asserted therein, which is a
matter resolved only after and as a result of trial.
Jurisdiction also cannot be made to depend upon the
defenses made by a defendant in his answer or motion
to dismiss.
The complaint here reveals that the subject matter is
one of claim for damages arising from quasi-delict and
therefore falls within the regular courts’ jurisdiction.
OTHER NOTES:
Adviento also filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
payment of backwages with the NLRC (San Fernando,
Pampanga), which was still pending resolution at the
time.
Requisites for claim of liability under quasi-delict:
(a) Damages suffered by plaintiff;
(b) Fault or negligence of defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond;
and
(c) Connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence of defendant and damages
incurred by plaintiff.
Heirs of Telesforo Julao v. Spouses De Jesus
(2014)
G.R. No. 176020
J. Del Castillo
DOCTRINE/S:
● Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in
the complaint.
● In an action for recovery of possession, the
assessed value of the property sought to be
recovered determines the court’s jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
1. Telesforo Julao filed before the DENR two
Townsite Sales Application (TSA) (TSA No-
V2132 and TSA V-6667)
2. Upon his death, his applications were
transferred to his heirs.
3. In 1979, Solito Julao executed a Deed of
Transfer of rights of his hereditary share in the
property (covered by TSA NO. 6667) in favor
of respondent spouses.
4. DENR dropped TSA V-6667 and uphold TSA
V2132.
5. In 1998, an OCT was issued in favor of
petitioners.
6. Petitioners filed an action before the RTC
(complaint for recovery of possession of
real property) against the respondent.
7. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on
ground of prescription which the RTC denied
for lack of merit.
8. RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioners.
9. However, respondents filed an appeal before
the CA.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
complaint for recovery of possession
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
● They claimed that theory is the true owner and
possessor of the subject property.
RTC RULING: RTC ruled in favor of petitioners and
ruled that it was the TSA V-2132 which resulted in the
issuance of the OCT. Therefore, since Solito
transferred to respondent was his hereditary share in
the parcel of land covered by TSA V-6667, respondent
spouses acquired no rights over the subject property.
CA RULING: reversed and set aside the ruling of the
RTC and ruled that the complaint failed to
establish that RTC had jurisdiction over the case
as petitioners failed to allege the assessed value of
the property.
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC has the jurisdiction to
hear and decide the case for recovery of possession.
RULING: NONE.
The Court first stated that jurisdiction is conferred by
law and is determined by the allegations in the
complaint, which contains the concise statement
of the ultimate facts of a plaintiff’s cause of action.
BP 129 provides that:
● RTC has exclusive original jursidiction in all
civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of real property where the
assessed value for property involved
EXCEEDS 20,000 PESOS, or for civil
actions in metro manila, where such value
EXCEEDS 50,000. (exc for unlawful detainer
and forcible entry cases)
● MTC, MCTC, MeTC shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve the title to, or possession of real
property where the assessed value for
property involved DOES NOT EXCEED
20,000 PESOS, or for civil actions in metro
manila, where such value DOES NOT
EXCEED 50,000.
Thus, it is clear that in an action for recovery of
possession, the assessed value of the property sought
to be recovered determines the court’s jurisdiction.
In this case, in order for RTC to have jurisdiction, the
assessed value of the subject property must exceed
P20,000. Since petitioner failed to alleged in their
complaint the assessed value of the subject
property, the CA correctly dismissed the
complaint as petitioners failed to establish RTC’s
jurisdiction.
In fact, since the assessed value was not placed in the
complaint, it cannot be determined which trial court
had original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
OTHER NOTES:
● The Court also ruled here that defense of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any state of the proceedings, even
for the first time on appeal.
● In fact, the court may motu proprio dismiss a
complaint at any time when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that lack
of jurisdiction exists.
Tumpag v. Tumpag (2014)
G.R. No. 199133
J. Brion
DOCTRINE/S: Factual allegations in the complaint
should be considered in tandem with the statements
and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as
annexes or integral parts. A mere reference to the
attached document could facially resolve the question
on jurisdiction and would have rendered lengthy
litigation on this point unnecessary.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
FACTS: Esperanza Tumpag alleged in her complaint
that she is the absolute owner of a parcel of land.
Attached to her complaint are the photocopy of the
Title under her name and the Declaration of Real
Property providing that the market value of the land is
P51,965 and its assessed value is P20,790.00.
Samuel Tumpag has been occupying a portion of not
less than one thousand square meters out of the total
of 12,000 square meters for 10 years at the tolerance
of Esperanza.
Esperanza wanted to recover the parcel of land but
Samuel refused to vacate in spite of repeated
demands. Samuel even instigated their other relatives
to file a case to nullify Esperanza’s title over the land.
This case was dismissed with finality by the inferior
courts.
Initially, Esperanza orally demanded Samuel the return
of her property. The matter was brought before the
Barangay for conciliation proceedings which later
proved futile; hence, this complaint before the RTC of
Kabankalan, Negros Occidental.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Complaint for recovery of possession with damages.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint due
to the failure of Esperanza to state a cause of action;
that it was barred by prior judgement (was not
discussed); and lack of jurisdiction.
RTC RULING: RTC denied the motion to dismiss and
proceeded to try the case. The RTC ruled IN FAVOR
of ESPERANZA and ordered Samuel to return the
possession of the portion of Esperanza’s lot.
CA RULING: REVERSED the Decision of the RTC.
The CA held that the proceedings before the RTC
were null and void because of lack of jurisdiction.
Esperanza failed to allege in her complaint the
assessed value of her disputed warranty which led to
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
Motion for Reconsideration: DENIED.
ISSUE: Whether the failure to allege the assessed
value of the disputed property warranted the dismissal
of the complaint?
RULING: No, the failure to allege the assessed value
of the disputed property did not warrant the dismissal
of the complaint.
Under B.P. 129, as amended, the RTC has jurisdiction
over civil actions involving real property, or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the said property
exceeds P20,000.00 or for civil actions in Metro
Manila, the value exceeds P50,000.00 except in cases
of unlawful detainer or forcible entry.
The general rule is that the court will look into the
allegations of the complaint to determine whether it
has jurisdiction over the case. The Court also ruled
that rigid application of this rule should be avoided
when it would result in the defiance of substantial
justice. Factual allegations in the complaint should be
considered in tandem with the statements and
inscriptions on the documents attached to it as
annexes or integral parts.
In this case, Esperanza sought the recovery of
possession of real property before the RTC but she
failed to allege the assessed value in the complaint.
However, Esperanza was able to attach the
Declaration of Real Property in her complaint providing
that the market value of the land is P51,965 and its
assessed value is P20,790.00. A mere reference to the
attached document could facially resolve the question
on jurisdiction and would have rendered lengthy
litigation on this point unnecessary.. In the end,
Esperanza was able to provide for the assessed value
of her property albeit not alleged in the complaint.
OTHER NOTES:
On the claim of Samuel that the value of the property
was below that provided in the Declaration of Real
Property
The Court held that Samuel cannot raise this fact given
that he filed a motion to dismiss which means that he
admits all the factual and material allegations in the
complaint.
On the claim of Esperanza that Samuel is barred by
estoppel to raise the issue on jurisdiction - belated
contention
The Court held that Samuel is not barred by estoppel.
He consistently brought the issue before the courts
although he did not say that it was “lack of jurisdiction”
but rather “insufficiency of Esperanza’s complaint.”

Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry, G.R. No. 212690,
February 20, 2017
DOCTRINE: If the complaint is for a sum of money,
the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation and that courts jurisdiction will depend
on the amount of such claim. However, if the
complaint is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money and that the money claim
is only incidental, such cases may not be
estimated in terms of money and that the Regional
Trial Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction thereof
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts:
● Respondent in this case filed a complaint
which indicates “Breach of Contract and
Damages” against petitioners before the RTC
of Cebu City. In this case, it was alleged that
both parties entered into an outlet contract.
Subsequently, petitioners violated the said
contract, hence this complaint filed by
respondents.
● In its complaint, respondents prayed for a total
of P280,000 as damages against petitioners.
The issue of jurisdiction was raised during the
pre-trial.
● The RTC issued an order dismissing the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that
since the total amount prayed for by
respondents was only P280,000, RTC’s can
not exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the
case, pursuant to B.P. 129 as amended by
R.A. No, 7691.
● Upon appeal, the CA assailed and set aside
the decision of the RTC and remanded the
case to the court a quo for further
proceedings. It ruled that the complaint was
not for recovery of money but a case for
breach of contract wherein the cause of action
is either specific performance or rescission of
contracts, hence, it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation and that RTC has exclusive
jurisdiction.
● Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
● Petitioners upheld the decision of the RTC that
the complaint is for recovery of a sum of
money in the form of damages and that in
determining the jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the allegations in the Complaint and
the principal relief in the prayer must be
considered. Furthermore, they concluded that
in applying the totality of claims rule,
respondent’s Complaint should be dismissed.
● On the other hand, respondent argued that the
basis of the Complaint is breach of contract
and that the damages prayed for are merely
incidental to the principal action.
Issue: W/N the Regional Trial Court has exclusive
jurisdiction in this case (No)
Ruling:
● The Court held that respondent’s complaint,
which indicates as one for “Breach of Contract
and Damages” is neither an action for specific
performance nor a complaint for rescission. An
analysis of the factual and material allegations
in the Complaint shows that there is nothing
therein which would support that the complaint
is one for specific performance or rescission of
contract. It is clear that the Complaint filed by
respondent was for recovery of a sum of
money in a form of damages, which is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation.
● In conclusion, the Court held that since the
action was for a sum of money, the amount of
such claim shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of courts. Since the total
amount of the damages claimed by
respondent is only P280,000, the RTC was
correct in dismissing the case pursuant to the
provisions of BP 129, as amended by R.A.
7691. The law states that the RTC will have
exclusive jurisdiction over a case if the amount
claimed exceeds P300,000, which in this case,
does not apply
Sps. Aboitiz vs. Sps. Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5,
2017, J. Leonen
DOCTRINE/S: While the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to annul judgments of the Regional Trial
Courts, the case at bar is not for the annulment of a
judgment of a Regional Trial Court. It is for
reconveyance and the annulment of title thus, RTC
has jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: two consolidated
petitions for certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● This case involves a parcel of land under the
name of Roberto Aboitiz. This parcel of land
originally belonged to the late Mariano Seno.
● In 1973, Mariano Seno executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of his son, Ciriaco Seno
over a land in Cebu. This property included 2
lots: Lot No. 2807 and the subject land, Lot
No. 2835.
● In 1978, Ciriaco sold the 2 lots to respondent
Po. Thereafter, Mariano died and was survived
by his 5 children (Mariano Heirs).
● In 1990, Po discovered that Ciriaco had
executed a quitclaim renouncing his interest
over the subject lot in favor of petitioner
Roberto. In the quitclaim, Ciriaco stated that
he was the declared owner of Lot Nos. 2835
and 2807. Then, Lot No. 2835 was also sold to
Roberto. The Mariano Heirs, including Ciriaco,
executed separate deeds of absolute sale in
favor of Roberto. Thereafter, Roberto
 immediately developed the lot as part of a
subdivision called North Town Homes.
● Thereafter, Roberto filed an application for
original registration of the subject lot. The trial
court granted the issuance of Original
Certificate of Title in the name of Roberto.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Complaint to recover the land and to declare nullity of
title with damages
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: The
decision of the RTC in granting the complaint of Sps.
Po is void for lack of jurisdiction over the matter. Sps.
Aboitiz claimed that a branch of the RTC has no
jurisdiction to nullify a final and executory decision of a
co-equal branch; it is the Court of Appeals that has this
jurisdiction.
Sps. Po argued that the RTC had jurisdiction when it
granted their complaint because the case filed by the
Sps. Aboitiz was for the registration of the land, while
the case they filed was for reconveyance.
RTC RULING: It ruled in favor of the Spouses Po
because the action was for reconveyance.
CA RULING: Partially affirmed the trial court's
decision, declaring the Spouses Po as the rightful
owner of the land. However, it ruled that the titles
issued to respondents Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel
should be respected.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over
Spouses Po's complaint.
RULING: Yes, RTC has jurisdiction over Spouses Po's
complaint.
The present action is not for the annulment of
judgment of a Regional Trial Court. It is a complaint for
reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages. To
distinguish the 2 actions, Toledo v. CA explained that
the complaint for reconveyance is a remedy where the
plaintiff argues for an order for the defendant to
transfer its title issued in a proceeding not otherwise
invalid. The relief prayed for may be granted on the
basis of intrinsic rather than extrinsic fraud; that is,
fraud committed on the real owner rather than fraud
committed on the procedure amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. On the other hand, an action for annulment
of title questions the validity of the grant of title on
grounds which amount to lack of due process of law.
The remedy is premised in the nullity of the procedure
and thus the invalidity of the title that is issued. Title
that is invalidated as a result of a successful action for
annulment against the decision of a Regional Trial
Court acting as a land registration court may still
however be granted on the merits in another
proceeding not infected by lack of jurisdiction or
extrinsic fraud if its legal basis on the merits is properly
alleged and proven.
Here, the complaint of the Sps. Po asserted that they
were the true owners of the parcel of land which was
registered in the name of Sps. Aboitiz. Thus, they
sought to recover the property and to cancel the title of
the Sps Aboitiz. So, except for actions falling within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, RTCs have
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title
to, or possession of, real property as provided under
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. While the CA
has jurisdiction to annul judgments of the RTCs as
provided under Sec. 9, BP Blg. 129, the present case
is not for the annulment of a judgment of RTC but it is
for reconveyance and the annulment of title.
Considering the Spouses Aboitiz's fraudulent
registration without the Spouses Po's knowledge and
the latter's assertion of their ownership of the land,
their right to recover the property and to cancel the
Sps. Aboitiz' s title shows that the action is for
reconveyance and annulment of title and not for
annulment of judgment. Therefore, the RTC has
jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Heirs of the Late Sps. Ramiro vs. Sps. Bacaron
(2019)
G.R. No. 196874
Jardeleza, J.
DOCTRINE/S: The nature of the action and which the
court has original exclusive jurisdiction over the same
is determined by the material allegations of the action
being filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to some or all the claims asserted therein.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Spouses Bacaron filed a complaint before the
RTC. In their amended complaint, they
asserted that spouses Ramiro sold the
property to spouses Bacaro, as evidenced by
a Deed of Sale.
● However, the subject property was mortgaged
by spouses Ramiro to the DBP. Spouses
Bacaron paid the DBP for the redemption of
the property. Ultimately, Spouses Ramiro
forced Spouses Bacaron to vacate the
property.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Declaration of the validity of the Deed of Sale, action
for specific performance
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
The RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
RTC RULING: IN FAVOR OF SPOUSES BACARON
This is because they were able to prove the execution
of the deed of sale. While they were not able to
produce the original copy of the Deed of Sale, they
were still able to present secondary evidence.
CA RULING: AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC in
toto.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over
the subject matter
RULING: Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
● BP 129, Section 19 as amended by RA No.
7691 states that the RTC has exclusive
original jurisdiction over the following cases
○ Civil actions where the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation
○ Civil actions which involve the title or
possession of real property or any
interest wherein the assessed value of
the property:
■ Exceeds P20,000 or
■ Exceeds P50,000 for cases in
Metro Manila.
○ This does not apply in actions for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer of
lands and buildings, as original
jurisdiction is conferred upon the MTC,
MTCC, and MeTC.
● Moreover, Section 33 provides that the MTC,
MTCC, and MeTC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over title or possession of real
property or interest if the assessed value:
○ Does not exceed P20,000
○ Not exceeding P50,000 for cases in
Metro Manila
The nature of the action and which the court has
original exclusive jurisdiction over the same is
determined by the material allegations of the
action being filed, irrespective of whether the
plaintiffs are entitled to some or all the claims
asserted therein.
● In the case at hand, there was no effort on the
part of the Spouses Bacaron to allege the
value of the assessed property.
● While the actions filed were for the declaration
of validity for the deed of sale and action for
specific performance, the amended complaint
as well as the reliefs sought by Spouses
Bacaron established that the action involved in
the case is title to or possession of real
property.
OTHER NOTES:
● Action involving title to real property
○ The plaintiff’s cause of action is based
on the claim that he either
■ Owns the subject property; or
■ Has legal rights to the
exclusive control, possession,
enjoyment, or disposition of
the property.
● Title
○ Legal link between a person who
owns the property and the property
itself.
Berbano vs. Tapulao (2019)
G.R. No. 227482
J. Lazaro-Javier
DOCTRINE:
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power to hear and determine the general class
to which the proceedings in question belong. It
is conferred by law, and not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties, or by
erroneous belief of the court that it exists.
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by examining the material
allegations of the complaint and the relief
sought.
● A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court
and ask for affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari filed by petitioners, assailing the decision of
the CA, which affirmed the decision of the RTC
FACTS:
● The Heirs of Roman Tapulao (Heirs of
Tapulao) alleged that their father Roman was
the registered owner of a lot in Taguing,
Baggao, Cagayan.
● After the death of Roman and his wife
Catalina, the Heirs of Tapulao caused the
relocation survey of the lot. It revealed that the
petitioners occupied portions of the lot.
Despite several demands, petitioners refused
to vacate and return the lot to the heirs.
● Petitioners argued that the original owner of
the lot was Felipe Peña (Peña). Peña ceded
his possession over half the hectare of the lot
in favor of Joaquin Berbano (one of the
petitioners).
● Peña then sold the adjacent lot to Roman.
When Roman caused its registration, the
 survey mistakenly included the adjacent lot
belonging to Joaquin. Thus, the title in the
name of Roman also covered Joaquin’s lot.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE RTC: Complaint for
Recovery of Possession and Damages filed by the
Heirs of Tapulao against petitioners Joaquin Berbano,
Trinidad Berbano, and Melchor Berbano
RTC RULING: The RTC ruled in favor of Heirs of
Tapulao.
ACTIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS:
● In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners,
for the first time, raised the issue of
jurisdiction.
● They asserted that since the value of the lot
was less than P20,000.00, the case fell within
the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC), and not the RTC.
● Although the entire lot has a total area of
18,512 square meters and an assessed value
of P22,070.00, the real subject matter of the
case is only a small part thereof (6,804 square
meters). This only carries an assessed value
of P8,111.72.
● The assessed value of the whole lot should
not be taken into consideration, considering
that only a portion thereof was in dispute.
● Hence, only the value of the specific portion
they were occupying must be the determining
jurisdictional factor.
CONTENTIONS OF THE HEIRS OF TAPULAO:
● The nature of the action and the value of the
subject matter are determined by the
allegations of the complaint.
● Here, the complaint alleged that the assessed
value of the lot was P22,070.00. This is an
amount well within the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
RTC RULING ON MR: The RTC denied petitioners’
motion for reconsideration.
CA: The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC duly acquired jurisdiction over
the case
RULING: Yes, the RTC duly acquired jurisdiction
over the case.
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power to hear and determine the general class
to which the proceedings in question belong. It
is conferred by law, and not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties, or by
erroneous belief of the court that it exists.
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by examining the material
allegations of the complaint and the relief
sought.
● In this case, the complaint clearly alleged that
the assessed value of the lot is P22,070.00. In
accordance with B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by
R.A. No. 7691, since the value of the subject
matter exceeds P20,000.00, it falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTCs.
● Petitioners’ claim that the property in dispute is
only a specific portion of the lot is irrelevant. It
does not alter what is actually alleged in the
complaint.
● Besides, it is not for petitioners to define the
allegations in their adversaries’ complaint.
That is the prerogative of the Heirs of Tapulao
as the plaintiffs.
● Additionally, petitioners cannot limit the
dispute to the alleged area actually being
contested. This is because the rest of the
contiguous portion of the lot could be relevant
to the remedy or remedies flowing therefrom.
Thus, the allegations of the Heirs of Tapulao in
their complaint cannot be deemed to be a
case of bad and false pleading.
● Lastly, petitioners never questioned the RTC’s
jurisdiction in the proceedings before it. In fact,
petitioners even filed their answer and sought
affirmative relief.
● It is only after the case was decided against
petitioners that they challenged the RTC’s
jurisdiction for the first time, via their motion for
reconsideration.
● A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court
and ask for affirmative relief against his
opponent and, after obtaining or failing to
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
Heirs of Balucanag vs. Dole Philippines, G.R. No.
225424, Jan. 6, 2020
DOCTRINE: A decision that has acquired finality can
no longer be altered, and may no longer be modified in
any respect even if such modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.
Undisputed facts
● This case is a petition for review on certiorari
which assailed the 10 June 2015 Decision and
19 April 2016 Resolution of the CA-Cagayan
De Oro
● The case at hand originated from a complaint
for ejectment filed by Dole Philippines against
the late Romulo Balucanag.
● According to Dole Philippines, it has been in
continuous possession of several parcels of
land in South Cotabato as lessees since 1996
 (Note: The parcels were registered in the
name of Sarangani Resources). Moreover,
Dole stated that they tolerated Balucang’s
possession of the land in question.
● Dole demanded that Balucanag vacate the
land, which was unheeded. Hence, Dole filed
for a complaint for ejectment.
● However, Balucanag, together with Iluminada
and Abraham Tomenlanco claimed that he
occupied the property since 1974 for
commercial and residential purposes.
Procedural history
● The MTC ruled that Dole Philippines had the
right to the subject property, and that the
possession of the subject property by
Balucanag, et.al. was by tolerance. Their
possession became unlawful once they
refused to vacate the premises upon demand.
Hence, the MTC ordered Balucang and his co-
defendants to vacate the property and pay
reasonable compensation.
● The other defendants filed an appeal before
the RTC, while Balucanag filed a motion for
reconsideration. However, Balucang
subsequently filed a manifestation before the
RTC in order to consider his motion for
reconsideration before the MTC as his
Memorandum on the appeal of the
Tomenlacos was timely filed.
● Balucanag questioned the jurisdiction of
the MTC in trying the case since the
complaint did not make out a case of
unlawful detainer.
● The RTC denied the appeal and found that the
complaint made out a case of unlawful
detainer.
● The CA dismissed the appeal for lack of merit
since the petitioners failed to timely file the
appeal given that they filed a motion for
reconsideration before the MTC.
○ A motion for reconsideration is a
prohibited pleading under the Rules
on Summary Proceeding. Hence, it did
not stop the running of the period to
file an appeal. As such, the decision of
the MTC became final and executory
as soon as the reglementary period
lapsed.
Petitioner’s contentions
● Lack of jurisdiction of the MTC over the case
since the elements of a complaint for unlawful
detainer were wanting
● Petitioners assert that the MTC decision
cannot attain the status of finality since such a
decision is void.
Respondents’ Contentions
● The MTC has jurisdiction over the case since
all the elements of a complaint for unlawful
detainer were not present
● They assert that petitioners have legal
standing in the case before the CA for failure
to timely file their appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the MTC lacks jurisdiction over
the case at hand, hence rendering their decision void
[NO]
RULING: The court ruled in the negative. The MTC
has jurisdiction over this case.
● Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case
is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a
concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.
● The following must be present in order for a
complaint to sufficiently allege a cause of
action for unlawful detainer:
○ The possession of property by the
defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff
○ The possession became illegal upon
notice by the plaintiff to the defendant
upon the termination of the latter’s
right to possession
○ The defendant remained in
possession of the property and
deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment
○ Within one year from the making of the
last demand to vacate the property on
the defendant, the plaintiff instituted
the complaint for ejectment
● All the requisites were present in this case:
○ Balucang and his co-parties’
possession of the land was by mere
tolerance
○ The possession of subject property
was already illegal once Dole
demanded that they vacate
○ They remained in the possession of
the property despite such demand
○ The complaint was filed within one
year from the date of last demand
● Since the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction, the
decision they rendered became final and
executory.
● A decision that has acquired finality can no
longer be altered, and may no longer be
modified in any respect even if such
modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law
Jurisdiction over the parties
Planters Development Bank v Julie Chandumal
(2012)
G.R. No. 195619
J. Reyes
DOCTRINE/S:
● Jurisdiction over the defendant may be
acquired by the court when he/she voluntarily
submits herself to the court by seeking an
affirmative relief.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC:. Petition for review
under Rule 45

FACTS:
1. BF Homes and Chamdumal entered into a
contract to sell a parcel of land.
2. Meanwhile, BF Homes sold to petitioner PDB
all its rights and interest over the contract.
3. At first, Chandumal was able to pay her
monthly amortizations until she defaulted in
May 1994.
4. Thus, PDB demanded for the payment of her
installment arrearages. But Chandumal failed
to pay.
5. Thus, PDB filed an action for judicial
confirmation of notarial rescission and delivery
of possession against Chandumal.
6. Consequently, summons was issued and
served by deputy sheriff Galing.
● According to his return, Galing
attempted to personally serve the
summons upon Chandumal on two
occasions but it was unavailing as she
was always outside of the house.
● Hence, the sheriff caused
substituted service of summons by
serving the same through
Chandumal’s mother who
acknowledged receipt thereof.
7. For failure to answer, PDB filed an ex parte
motion to declare Chandumal in default which
was granted by the RTC.
8. In return, Chandumal filed an Urgent
Motion to Set Aside Order of Default and to
admit attached answer.
9. RTC denied Chandumal’s motion.
10. Chandumal appealed to CA
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT: filed
an action for judicial confirmation of notarial rescission
and delivery of possession against Chandumal.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
PDB’s contentions:
● RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the
person of Chandumal
● There was proper service of summons since
the sheriff complied with the proper
procedures governing substituted service of
summons.
● There were several attempts on at least 3
different dates to effect personal service with a
reasonable period, before he caused
substituted service of summons.
● PDB argued that Chandumal voluntarily
submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
court when she filed for an Urgent motion
to set aside order of default and to admit
attached answer.
Chandumal’s contentions:
● She never received the summons and/or
notified of the same.
● RTC never acquired jurisdiction over her
person.
RTC RULING: RTC ruled in favor of PDB.
CA RULING: CA reversed the ruling of RTC and ruled
that RTC’s decision shall be nullified due to invalid and
ineffective substituted service of summons.
ISSUE: W/N the court has acquired jurisdiction over
Chandumal.
(Subissues for better understanding)
● W/N summons were properly served upon
Chandumal. (NO)
● W/N Chandumal voluntarily submitted herself
to the court. (YES)
RULING: Yes, the court had acquired jurisdiction over
Chandumal.
The Court first explained that jurisdiction over
defendant in a civil case is acquired either:
● Through service of summons (OR)
● Through voluntary appearance in court and
submission to its authority.
If the defendant has not been properly summoned,
the court acquires no jurisdiction over its person,
and a judgment rendered against it is null and
void.
(ruling as to the first sub issue)
Where the action is in personam and teh defendant is
in the PH, service of summons may be made
● through personal service - summons shall
be served by handling to the defendant in
person a copy thereof, or if he refuses to
receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
● Substituted service - if only the defendant
cannot be personally served with summons
within a reasonable time.
In other words, personal service of summons should
and always be the first option, and it is only when the
saud summons cannot be served within reasonable
time can the process server resort to substituted
service.
In this case, the court held that there was no valid
substituted service of summons. The requisites are:
1. Impossibility of prompt personal service -
defendant cannot be served promptly or there
is impossibility of prompt service.
2. Specific details in the return - describe the
facts and circumstances surrounding the
attempted personal service.
3. A person of suitable age and discretion -
determine if the person found in the alleged
dwelling of defendant is of legal age,
relationship to defendant, and whether such
person comprehends the receipt of summons
and his duty to deliver it immediately to the
defendant.
4. A competent person in charge - must have
sufficient knowledge to understand the
obligation of the defendant in summons.
In this case, the return of summons does not
specifically show or indicate in delta the actual exertion
of efforts in attempting to serve the summons
personally. There was no indication if the sheriff asked
the mother of Chandumal of the latter’s whereabouts.
(as to the second sub-issue)
However, the Court ruled that although there was no
valid substituted service of summons, Chandumal
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial
court.
When Chandumal filed an urgent motion to set aside
order of default and to admit attaches answer, she
effectively submitted her person to the jurisdiction of
the trial court as the filing of a pleading where in
seeks an affirmative relief is equivalent to service
of summons and vests the trial court with
jurisdiction over the defendant’s person.
Thus, filing a motion to admit answer and to lift the
order of default constitutes voluntary submission
to the trial court. Moreover, the Court ruled that
Chandumal failed to positively assert the trial court’s
lack of jurisdiction. In fact, Chandumal even appealed
the RTC decision to CA, an act which demonstrates
her recognition of the trial court’s jurisdiction to render
said judgement.
BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES v. CA (2013)
G.R. No. 173946
J. Perez
DOCTRINE/S: Only jurisdiction over the subject matter
can be barred by estoppel by laches and not
jurisdiction over the person.
There is no valid service of summons when the
defendant died before the complaint is filed since the
essence of the service of summons is for the
defendant to receive and be notified of the action
against him.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS: Boston filed a complaint against Manuel and
Lolita Toledo.
Lolita filed an Answer alleging that, among others, her
husband and co-defendant, already died on July 13,
1995, as evidenced by the death certificate of Manuel.
Manuel’s death occured 2 years prior to the filing of the
complaint.
Boston then filed a motion requiring Lolita to disclose
the heirs of Manuel which was granted by the Court
and to which Lolita also complied.
Boston then filed a Motion for Substitution. Boston
prays that Manuel should be substituted by his heirs in
the present action.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: In
her motion to dismiss, Lolita contends that the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manuel.
RTC RULING: IN FAVOR of Boston. The court held
that Lolita was already barred by estoppel to raise the
issue of jurisdiction.
CA RULING: REVERSED. The court held that Lolita
was right in claiming that the RTC never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel because he is
already dead.
ISSUE: Whether the lower court has acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel that would allow
substitution by his heirs?
RULING: No, the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel.
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from
being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Here, what is being
assailed is the jurisdiction over the person of Manuel.
Thus, the principle of estoppel by laches finds no
application in this case.
The jurisdiction over the person of Manuel was never
acquired by the trial court. In this case, there was no
valid service of summons upon him, precisely because
he was already dead even before the complaint
against him and his wife was filed in the trial court.
How can he receive and be notified of the action
against him?
Since Manuel was already dead at the time of the filing
of the complaint, the court never acquired jurisdiction
over the person of Manuel and, in effect, there was no
party to be substituted.
OTHER NOTES:
Substitution is proper only where the party to be
substituted died during the pendency of the case, as
expressly provided in the Rules of Court.
The lack of jurisdiction over the person of Manuel
cannot be a basis for the dismissal of the case against
Lolita. She cannot ride on the effects of Manuel’s
death.
The Court also held that the estate of Manuel is not an
indispensable party and the case can proceed as
against Lolita only.
Cabrera v. Francisco, G.R. No. 172293, August 28,
2013
DOCTRINE: The averments in the Complaint and the
character of the relief sought in the said Complaint
must be consulted. This is because the jurisdiction of
the court is determined by the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
Complaint.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Facts:
● Respondent’s father appointed Severino,
husband of Araceli and father of Arnel
(Petitioners), as administrator of all his real
properties located in San Jose, Antique.
● When Severino died, petitioners took over the
administration of the parties with the consent
of the respondents. The latter then instructed
the petitioners to find buyers for the properties,
it was also promised that a commission of five
percent of the total purchase price of the
properties as compensation for their long and
continued administration.
● Petitioners introduced Erlinda to the
respondents. Erlinda agreed that the said
properties shall be developed by Erlinda’s
company.
● Subsequently, the respondents appointed
Erlinda as the new administrator of the
properties and that terminated petitioner’s
services. Thereafter, petitioners demanded for
their five present commission and
compensation, respondents did not heed to
their demand. This led to the filing of a
Complaint for Collection of Agent’s
Compensation, Commission and Damages
against respondents before the RTC.
● They alleged in their complaint that they are
entitled for the five percent of the assessed
market value of the properties, which is
P177,506.60.
● Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC.
● The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents and
dismissed the case since it did not meet the
standard in which the RTC would have
exclusive jurisdiction over the case, pursuant
to BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, CA then
affirmed the said decision.
● Petitioners now argue that their claim is one
which is incapable of pecuniary estimation or
one involving interest in real property
assessed value which exceeds P200,000. On
the other hand, respondents assert that
petitioners’ Complaint is for a specific sum of
money seeking to recover P177,503.60, which
is below the jurisdictional amount for RTCs
outside of Metro Manila.
Issue: W/N RTC has jurisdiction over the case (No)
Ruling:
● The Court held that since the Complaint is
neither one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation nor involves interest in a real
property, the RTC cannot exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction over the case pursuant to
Sec. 19(1) and (2) of BP129, as amended by
RA 7691. Since the said Complaint does not
fall under the purview of these provisions, it
must meet the jurisdictional amount required
for RTCs outside of Metro Manila.
● In this case, based on the allegations made in
the Complaint, it is clear that the claim prayed
for by the petitioners does not meet the said
amount required for RTCs to have jurisdiction
over the case. The law provides that the
amount prayed for must exceed P200,000 in
order for the RTC to acquire exclusive original
jurisdiction over the case. The amount prayed
for by the petitioners, based on its allegations
in the complaint, is only P 177,503.60 or five
percent of the assessed value of the
properties involved in this case. Hence, the
lower courts were correct in dismissing the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Macasaet vs. Co, G.R. No. 156759, June 5, 2013, J.
Bersamin
DOCTRINE/S: To warrant the substituted service of
the summons and copy of the complaint, the serving
officer must first attempt to effect the same upon the
defendant in person. Only after the attempt at personal
service has become futile or impossible within a
reasonable time may the officer resort to substituted
service.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus
FACTS:
● Respondent Francisco Co, a retired police
officer sued Abante Tonite, its publisher,
managing director, circulation manager,
editors and columnist/reporter (petitioners)
claiming damages because of an allegedly
libelous article.
● RTC issued summons to be served on each
defendant, including Abante Tonite, at their
business address.
● In the morning of Sep. 18, 2000, RTC Sheriff
Raul Medina proceeded to the stated address
to effect the personal service of the summons.
But his efforts to personally serve such
summons in the address were futile because
the defendants were then out of the office and
unavailable.
● He returned in the afternoon of that day to
make a second attempt at serving the
summons, but he was informed that
defendants were still out of the office.
● Thus, he decided to resort to substituted
service of the summons.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Action for Damages
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Petitioners alleged lack of jurisdiction over their
persons because of the invalid and ineffectual
substituted service of summons. They contended that
the sheriff had made no prior attempt to serve the
summons personally on each of them in accordance
with Section 6 and Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court.
Respondent: Summonses cannot be served within a
reasonable time to the persons of all the defendants,
hence substituted service of summonses was validly
applied. Thus, the summonses served upon the
defendants through LuAnn Quijano and Rene Esleta
(editorial assistants) are proper.
RTC RULING: In favor of the Respondent because
there was substantial compliance with the rules,
considering the difficulty to serve the summons
personally to Petitioners because of the nature of their
job which compels them to be always out and
unavailable.
CA RULING: AFFIRMED. This is because the sheriff
certified that effort to serve the summons personally
were made, but the same were ineffectual and
unavailing thus there was a substantial compliance
with the rules that allowed the substituted service.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the
Petitioners.
RULING: Yes, RTC has jurisdiction over the
Petitioners.
The purpose of summons in such action is not the
acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly
to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due
process.
The significance of the proper service of the summons
on the defendant in an action in personam fulfills two
fundamental objectives, namely: (a) to vest in the court
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant; and (b) to
afford to the defendant the opportunity to be heard on
the claim brought against him. As to the former, when
jurisdiction in personam is not acquired in a civil action
through the proper service of the summons or upon a
valid waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial
and judgment are void. As to the latter, the essence of
due process lies in the reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to submit any evidence the defendant may
have in support of his defense.
If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be
served in person within a reasonable time, the service
of the summons may then be effected either (a) by
leaving a copy of the summons at his residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his office
or regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof (substituted service).
In this case, Medina twice attempted to serve the
summons upon each of the petitioners in person at
their office address but each attempt failed. Thus, the
substituted service is proper as Petitioners had
actually received the summonses served through their
substitutes, as borne out by their filing of several
pleadings in the RTC.
OTHER NOTES: Rule 14, ROC
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. —
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served
by handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person,
or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering
it to him.
Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for
justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding
section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies
of the summons at the defendant's residence with
some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with
some competent person in charge thereof.
The Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong (2017)
G.R. No. 193340
JARDELEZA, J.
DOCTRINES
● The Code of Muslim Personal Laws has
concurrent Jursidiction upon Shari’a district
Courts over personal and real actions wherein
the parties involved are Muslims, except for
cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
● The chief representative being a Muslim is
irrelevant since he is a representative of the
LGU. As such, he is not a real party in interest.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● The heirs of Macalabo Alompo filed a
Complaint with the Shari’a District Court
against the Municipality of Tangkal for the
recovery of possession and ownership of a
parcel of land.
● The Municipality of Tangkal filed an Urgent
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper
venue and lack of jurisdiction, which the
Shari’a District Court denied. The Shari’a
District Court stated that the case is an action
involving Muslims since the Mayor is a muslim.
○ Moreover, it ruled that it has territorial
jurisdiction over the provinces of
Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte.
● The Municipality of Tangkal moved for
reconsideration, which was denied.The Shari’a
District Court ordered the Municipality of
Tangkal to file its answer, where it assailed the
court’s lack of jurisdiction.
● Hence, the petitioner heirs elevated the case
to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT
● recovery of possession and ownership of a
parcel of land
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
● The Shari’a District Court has no jurisdiction
because the one of the parties to the case is a
municipality which does not have a religious
affiliation.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANT:
● The Shari’a District Court has jurisdiction since
the mayor of the municipality is a Muslim.
ISSUE:
Whether the Shari’a District Court of Marawi City has
jurisdiction in an action for recovery filed by Muslims
against a municipality whose mayor is a Muslim
RULING: NO. The Shari’a District Court does not
have jurisdiction over this case.
The Code of Muslim Personal Laws has concurrent
Jursidiction upon Shari’a district Courts over
personal and real actions wherein the parties
involved are Muslims, except for cases of forcible
entry or unlawful detainer.
● If one of the parties is is not a Muslim, then the
action must be filed before the regular courts.
● “Parties” pertain to the real parties-in-interest
in the case.
● In this case, the parties-in-interest are the
people of the Municipality of Tangkal (party-
defendant). Mayor Batingolo, as the local chief
executive, was only impleaded in a
representative capacity.
○ When an action is defended by a
representative, that representative is
not, and does not become a real party-
in-interest
○ GU)In order for a case to be subject to
the jurisdiction of the Shari’a District
Court, both parties must be Muslim.
○ An LGU is a juridical person. Hence, it
cannot adopt or exercise any religion.
Exercise of its Equity Jurisdiction
Viva Shipping Lines vs. Keppel Phils. (2016)
G.R. No. 177382
J. Leonen
DOCTRINE:
● Our courts are not only courts of law, but are
also courts of equity. Equity is justice outside
 legal provisions, and must be exercised in the
absence of law, not against it.
● Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice
in cases where a court of law is unable to
adapt its judgments to the special
circumstances of a case because of the
inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.
Equity is the principle by which substantial
justice may be attained in cases where the
prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law
are inadequate.
● The factual antecedents of a plea for the
exercise of liberality must be clear. There must
also be a showing that the factual basis for a
plea for liberality is not one that is due to the
negligence or design of the party requesting
the suspension of the rules.
● Likewise, the basis for claiming an equitable
result must be clearly and sufficiently pleaded
and argued. Courts exercise liberality in line
with their equity jurisdiction; hence, it may only
be exercised if it will result in fairness and
justice.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari filed by Viva Shipping Lines, Inc. (Viva)
FACTS:
● Viva Shipping Lines, Inc. filed a petition for
corporate rehabilitation before the RTC of
Lucena City, but this was initially denied for
failure to comply with the requirements under
the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation.
● Viva then filed an amended petition. However,
the allegations therein were contrary to the
attached documents.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE RTC: Petition for
corporate rehabilitation filed by Viva Shipping Lines,
Inc.
RTC RULING:
● At first, the RTC found that such amended
petition to be sufficient in form and substance,
and issued a stay order.
● Before the initial hearing scheduled, several
parties such as the City of Batangas, Keppel
Philippines Marine, Inc., Metrobank, Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum Corporation, and Viva’s
employees filed their respective comments
and oppositions to Viva’s amended petition.
● The RTC then lifted the stay order and
dismissed Viva’s amended petition for failure
to show the company’s viability and the
feasibility of rehabilitation. Viva’s assets all
appeared to be non-performing. Furthermore,
Viva failed to show any evidence of consent to
sell real properties belonging to its sister
company.
CA RULING:
● In a petition for review under Rule 43 before
the CA, Viva only impleaded Hon. Adolfo
Encomienda (the RTC judge). It did not
implead any of its creditors.
● Viva served copies of the petition on counsels
for Metrobank, Keppel Philippines Marine, Inc.,
Pilipinas Shell, City of Batangas, and the City
of Lucena.
● However, Viva also did not implead or serve a
copy of the petition on its former employees.
● Ultimately, the CA found that Viva failed to
comply with procedural requirements under
Rule 43. Due to the failure of Viva to implead
its creditors as respondents, there are no
respondents who may be required to file a
comment on the petition.
● Viva then filed a motion for reconsideration
before the CA. It argued that its procedural
misstep was cured when it served copies of
the petition on the RTC and on its former
employees. However, the CA still denied the
motion for reconsideration.
ACTIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF VIVA:
● Viva argues that the CA should have given
due course to its petition and excused its non-
compliance with procedural rules.
● The Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation mandates a liberal construction
of procedural rules, which must prevail over
the strict application of Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court.
● Viva contends that the court disfavors
dismissals based on pure technicalities. It
adopts a policy stating that rules on appeal are
“not iron-clad and must yield to loftier
demands of substantial justice and equity.”
● Thus, the immediate dismissal of its petition by
the CA is contrary to the purpose of corporate
rehabilitation to rescue and rehabilitate
financially distressed companies.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF VIVA’S
CREDITORS (RESPONDENTS):
● The respondents argue that the CA’s dismissal
of Viva’s petition for review was proper for its
failure to implead any of its creditors. Viva’s
procedural misstep resulted in the denial of the
creditors’ right to due process, as they could
not file a comment on the petition. Viva did not
even try to explain why it failed to implead its
creditors.
 ● Compliance with the Interim Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation is
required, because it is the prescribed mode of
appealing trial court decisions and final orders
in corporate rehabilitation cases.
● The policy of liberality in construction of the
Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation are limited to proceedings in the
RTC, and not with respect to procedural rules
in elevating appeals relating to corporate
rehabilitation.
● Furthermore, because Viva repeatedly defied
procedural rules, it was no longer entitled to
the relaxation of these rules.
● Viva should not be afforded equitable
considerations, as it acted in bad faith by
concealing material information during the
rehabilitation proceedings.
ISSUE: W/N Viva’s petition was properly dismissed, on
the ground of its non-compliance with procedural rules
(Rules of Court and Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation)
RULING: Yes, Viva’s petition was properly
dismissed.
● Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding. However, resort to
liberal construction must be rational and well-
grounded, and its factual bases must be so
clear such that they outweigh the intent or
purpose of an apparent reading of the rules.
● There are two kinds of “liberality” with
respect to the construction of provisions of
law.
● The first requires ambiguity in the text of the
provision and usually pertains to a situation
where there can be two or more viable
meanings given the factual context presented
by a case. Here, liberality means a
presumption or predilection to interpret the text
in favor of the cause of the party requesting for
liberality.
● The second is the liberality that actually
means a request for the suspension of the
operation of a provision of law, whether
substantive or procedural. This liberality
requires equity. There may be some rights that
are not recognized in law, and if courts refuse
to recognize these rights, an unfair situation
may arise.
● Our courts are not only courts of law, but are
also courts of equity. Equity is justice outside
legal provisions, and must be exercised in the
absence of law, not against it.
● Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice
in cases where a court of law is unable to
adapt its judgments to the special
circumstances of a case because of the
inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.
Equity is the principle by which substantial
justice may be attained in cases where the
prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law
are inadequate.
● Liberality lies within the bounded discretion of
a court to allow an equitable result when the
proven circumstances require it. Liberality is
not an end in itself. Otherwise, it becomes a
backdoor disguising the arbitrariness or
despotism of judges and justices.
● The factual antecedents of a plea for the
exercise of liberality must be clear. There must
also be a showing that the factual basis for a
plea for liberality is not one that is due to the
negligence or design of the party requesting
the suspension of the rules.
● Likewise, the basis for claiming an equitable
result must be clearly and sufficiently pleaded
and argued. Courts exercise liberality in line
with their equity jurisdiction; hence, it may only
be exercised if it will result in fairness and
justice.
● In this case, Viva did not comply with some of
these requirements. It did not implead its
creditors as respondents. It also did not serve
a copy of the petition on some of its creditors,
specifically, its former employees. Finally, it
did not serve a copy of the petition on the
RTC.
● The SC cannot exercise its equity jurisdiction
and allow Viva to circumvent the requirement
to implead its creditors as respondents.
Tolerance of such failure will not only be unfair
to the creditors, it is contrary to the goals of
corporate rehabilitation, and will invalidate the
cardinal principle of due process of law.
Spouses Prudente Soller, et. al. vs. Hon. Singson
(DPWH Secretary) (2020)
G.R. No. 215547
J. Reyes, Jr.
DOCTRINE/S:
A strict application of the rules should not amount to
straight-jacketing the administration of justice. The
Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may
relax the rules of procedure in the interest of justice.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45
FACTS:
 1. Petitioners are the owners of parcels of land
near the Strong Republic Nautical Highway at
Poblacion, Oriental Mindoro.
2. King’s Builder and Development Construction
commenced an elevation project on a national
highway near the Bansud River Bridge.
3. Because of the elevation, floodwaters coming
from the nearby river were blocked and
submerged their properties which were on the
left side of the road.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Petitioners filed a petition for issuance of permanent
injunction and damages with prayer for TRO against
respondent DPWH Secretary Singson and King’s
Builders, among others.
Petitioners maintained that the elevation of the
highway impaired their use and enjoyment of their
houses and properties as pedestrians.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that
the issuance of injunctive writs is prohibited by P.D.
No. 1818. They also assert the applicability of State
immunity.
RTC RULING: Granted respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss, finding that it had no jurisdiction over the
matter.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the SC via a Rule 45
petition, insisting that RTC had jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
1) Whether the petitioners availed of the correct
remedy in filing a Rule 45 petition and whether
the Court has jurisdiction over the petition
2) Whether RTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter
RULING:
1) No, the petitioners erred in filing an appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45.
A motion to dismiss which has been granted
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
operates as a dismissal without prejudice. It is
not subject to an appeal under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court. Instead, the correct remedy is
a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
In this case, petitioners availed of the wrong
remedy and violated the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts in assailing the RTC resolutions
directly before the SC.
However, the Court has held in a plethora of
cases that a strict application of the rules
should not amount to straight-jacketing the
administration of justice. The principles of
justice and equity must not be sacrificed for a
stern application of the rules of procedure,
hence, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction,
the Court found it proper to resolve the case
on its merits.
2) Yes, it does. Under Sec. 19 of B.P. 129, the
RTC has jurisdiction over all civil cases in
which the subject matter under litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as in
this case a complaint for injunction.
The reliefs prayed for by petitioner landowners
is to enjoin the construction, or if completed, to
restore the affected portion to its original state.
The action is one for injunction which is within
the RTC’s jurisdiction.
Petition is granted. The case is remanded to the RTC
for further proceedings.
Difference between Jurisdiction and Exercise of
Jurisdiction
Platinum Tours and Travel, Inc vs Jose M. Panlilio
(2003)
G.R. No. 133365
J. Corona
DOCTRINE/S:
● Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a
case, not the orders or the decision rendered
therein.
● After the court acquired jurisdiction, the
decision on all questions arising from the case
is but an exercise of such jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Platinum filed a complaint for sum of
money with damages against PATC and its
president. (Civil case No. 94-1634)
2. RTC of Makati Branch 62 rendered judgment
in favor of Platinum.
3. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued
on motion of Platinum.
 ● Manila Polo Club Propriety Membership
certificate in the name of Galvez was
levied upon.
4. Panlilio filed a motion to intervene in Civil
Case No. 94-1634.
● Panlilio claimed that Galvez executed
a chattel mortgage in his favor over
her shares of stock in the Manila Polo
Club.
5. RTC denied Panlilio’s motion for intervention.
6. Panlilio filed against Galvez a collection case
and the said case was raffled to Branch 146 of
RTC of Makati. (Civil Case No. 96-365)
7. Panlilio again attempted to intervene in
Civil Case No. 94-1634, this time by
incorporating in his complaint a motion to
consolidate the two civil cases.
8. Judge Tensuan of Branch 146 granted the
motion as long as Judge Diokno of Branch 62
would not object. Judge Diokno allowed the
consolidation.
9. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before
the CA. (please refer to the ruling made by the
CA, that is where the issue arose and it’s
crucial to the case)
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
● Filed by Petitioner: complaint for sum of
money with damages against PATC and
Galvez.
● Filed by Respondent: collection case against
Galvez.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Contentions of petitioner (after CA ruling)
● RTC Makati Branch 62 has no jurisdiction to
try the Civil case filed by respondent.
● It argued that when Judge Diokno’s order
allowing the consolidation of the two cases
was set aside by the CA, RTC Branch 62’s
basis for acquiring jurisdiction over Civil
case filed by respondent was likewise
extinguished.
RTC RULING:
● Ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered
PATC and Galvez to pay petitioner.
● (As to the consolidation filed by respondent)
Judge Tensuan and Judge Diokno allowed the
consolidation.
CA RULING: CA set aside and annulled the order of
the RTC allowing the consolidation, but left the
discretion to Judge Diokno to decide whether to
return the civil case filed by respondent to Judge
Tensuan or to keep in his docker and decide it
separately.
ISSUE: W/N Branch 62, RTC of Makati, had lost its
jurisdiction over the civil case filed by respondent
when the CA annulled the order allowing the
consolidation.
RULING: No, Branch 62 of RTC of Makati does not
lose its jurisdiction over the civil case filed by
respondent.
In general, jurisdiction may either be:
1. Over the nature of action
2. Over the subject matter
● Conferred by law
● Determined by the allegations in the
complaint
3. Over the person of the defendants
● Acquired by his voluntary appearance in
court and his submission to its authority.
● (over the person of the plaintiff - acquired
from the time he filed his complaint)
4. Over the issues framed in the pleadings
(IMPT as to the issue in syllabus) The Court held that
jurisdiction should be distinguished from the “exercise
of jurisdiction”.
Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case,
not the orders or the decision rendered therein.
● Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction
over the person and the subject matter, the
decision on all questions arising from the case
is but an exercise of such jurisdiction.
Thus, any error that the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of
judgment which does not affect its authority to
decide the case, much less divest the court of the
jurisdiction over the case.
In this case, the civil case filed by Panlilio falls within
the jurisdiction of RTC of Makati, Branch 62. The fact
that the Court of Appeals subsequently annulled the
order of Judge Diokno granting the consolidation of the
two cases did not affect the jurisdiction of the court
which issued such order.
SPOUSES MANILA v. SPOUSES MANZO (2011)
G.R. No. 163602
J. Villarama, Jr.
DOCTRINE/S: Jurisdiction is not the same as the
exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the
exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to
decide a cause, and not the decision rendered
thereon. The ground for annulment is absence of, or
no jurisdiction or that the law does not confer the court
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS: Ederlinda Gallardo-Manzo was the lessor of
the Spouses Manila. Ederlina leased to the spouses 2
parcels of land for 10 years with an option to buy the
property within 2 years from the date of execution of
the contract of lease at a fair market value of
P150,000.00.
The contract of lease expired but the Spouses Manila
continued to stay in the parcels of land. A demand
letter was sent by Ederlinad but the spouses replied,
saying that they have the right to stay in the parcels of
land without the need to pay rent because they have
become the owner of the property at the time they
communicated to the Ederlinda their desire to exercise
the option to buy the said property.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT: An
action for ejectment was filed by the Spouses Manzo
against Spouses Manila.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: The
MeTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Manzo. Which led
the Spouses Manila to appeal before the RTC. They
claimed that they already own the parcels of land;
hence, their possession of the same was lawful.
RTC RULING: The RTC REVERSED the decision of
the MeTC and ruled in favor of the Spouses Manila. It
also ordered the execution of the dead of sale in favor
of the Spouses Manila.
The RTC decision has become final and executory
which led the Spouses Manzo to file a petition for
annulment of the RTC decision of the CA.
The spouses claim that the RTC cannot order the
execution of the deed of sale in favor of the Spouses
Manila since this is in relation to a case for specific
performance that falls under the original exclusive
jurisdiction of the RTC and not its appellate jurisdiction.
CA RULING: The CA REVERSED the decision of the
RTC and it ruled in favor of Spouses Manzo. The court
held that the RTC should have confined itself to the
issue of whether the Spouses Manzo have a valid
cause for ejectment against the Spouses Manila. The
order of asking the parties to execute a Deed of Sale
went beyond what is required from the court. The RTC
materially changed the nature of the Spouses Manzo’s
cause of action by deciding on the issue of ownership
when the only issue is the prior physician possession
of the parties.
ISSUE: Whether it was proper for the Spouses Manzo
to file a petition for annulment of the RTC Decision?
RULING: No, it was not proper for the Spouses Manzo
to file a petition for the annulment of the RTC Decision;
hence, the CA erred in granting the petition.
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of
jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
cause, and not the decision rendered thereon. The
ground for annulment is absence of, or no jurisdiction
or that the law does not confer the court jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
In this case, the RTC is vested with appellate
jurisdiction over ejectment cases decided by the
MeTC, MTC, or MCTC. The RTC, however, exceeded
its authority when it ordered the execution of a deed of
absolute sale in favor of Spouses Manila. The court
was limited in determining the issues on possession de
facto which should not constitute a bar to an action for
determination of who has the right or title.
The order of the issuance of the deed of sale led to the
conclusion that the Spouses Manila are the rightful
owners which is beyond the scope of the case of
ejectment which, again, is limited to the determination
of the parties entitled to physical possession of the
property.
OTHER NOTES:
The Spouses Manzo should have assailed the excess
in authority of the RTC through certiorari. However, the
Court held that the Spouses are barred from further
asking such relief from the court due to laches
because they have lost such remedy due to their
inaction for three and a half years.
Difference between Jurisdiction and Venue
Nocum v. Tan, G. R. No. 145022, Sept. 23, 2005
DOCTRINE: It is elementary that objections to venue
in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived
since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. The
laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive,
relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the
person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to
trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a procedural, not a
jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or
geographical location in which an action or proceeding
should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the
court. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties,
rather than restrict their access to the courts as it
relates to the place of trial.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts:
● Respondent filed a civil case against
petitioners seeking moral and exemplary
damages for the alleged malicious and
defamatory imputations contained in a news
article.
● In response, petitioners averred that the
complaint did not lay down the venue hence, it
should be dismissed.
● The RTC issued an order dismissing the
complaint on the grounds of improper venue.
Thereafter, respondent was able to submit an
amended complaint, reinstating the venue in
which the article, allegedly containing the
defamatory imputations, was printed, and
published. The RTC set aside the previous
order of dismissal.
● Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed the
decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the lower court. Hence, the Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
● Petitioners now argue that since the original
complaint only contained the office address of
respondent and not the latter's actual
residence or the place where the allegedly
offending news reports were printed and first
published, the original complaint, by reason of
the deficiencies in its allegations, failed to
confer jurisdiction on the lower court.
Issue: W/N the lower court acquire jurisdiction over
the civil case upon the filing of the original complaint
for damages (Yes)
Ruling:
● The Court explained that according to the
allegations in the complaint, RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the case when the original
complaint was filed since the cause of action is
for damages arising from libel, Article 360 of
the RPC provides that jurisdiction is vested
with the RTC.
● According to the Court, petitioners are
confusing jurisdiction with venue. The Court
first differentiated venue to jurisdiction to wit:
(a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and
determine a case; venue is the place where
the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction
is a matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a
relation between the court and the subject
matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and,
(d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be
conferred by the parties; venue may be
conferred by the act or agreement of the
parties. In the case at bar, the additional
allegations in the Amended Complaint that the
article and the caricature were printed and first
published in the City of Makati referred only to
the question of venue and not jurisdiction.
These additional allegations would neither
confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor would
respondent's failure to include the same in the
original complaint divest the lower court of its
jurisdiction over the case.
● Furthermore, since in this case, respondent
filed a civil action arising from libel, venue may
be waived and does not involve a question of
jurisdiction. Hence, the failure of the
respondent in not alleging the place where the
libelous articles were printed and first
published in the original complaint will not
affect the jurisdiction of the RTC since venue,
in civil actions arising from libel, is not
jurisdictional.
David vs. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859, June 5, 2017
J. Tijam
DOCTRINE/S: Venue in criminal cases is an essential
element of jurisdiction
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for certiorari
under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Respondent Glenda Marquez, a resident of
Sampaloc, Manila, alleged that sometime in
March 2005, petitioner Eileen David
approached her in Kidapawan City and
represented that she could recruit her to work
abroad.
● She claimed that David demanded payment of
placement fees and other expenses for the
processing of her application, to which she
heeded.
● Marquez's application was, however, denied
and worse, the money that she put out therefor
was never returned.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Criminal Action for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
David contended that the City Prosecutor of Manila
had no jurisdiction over the case as the alleged crime
was committed in Kidapawan City.
On the other hand, RTC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case under Section 9 of Republic
Act No. 8042 (Illegal Recruitment: where the offended
party actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense)
RTC RULING: (MR) In favor of Marquez because
RTC had no jurisdiction to try the cases since the
crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were not
committed in its territory but in Kidapawan City.
CA RULING: REVERSED. This is because RTC has
jurisdiction over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa, citing Section 9 of RA 8042.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC of Manila have jurisdiction
over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.
RULING: Yes, the RTC of Manila have jurisdiction
over the cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be
acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense
should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.
To explain, territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is
the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction
over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory.
The general rule where action is to be instituted is
provided under Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. However, Sec. 9 of RA 8042,
fixed an alternative venue. Following such rule, it is
clear that the RTC of Manila committed grave abuse of
discretion and in fact in ordering the quashal of the
Informations. The express provision of the law is clear
that the filing of criminal actions arising from illegal
recruitment before the RTC of the province or city
where the offended party actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense is allowed.
OTHER NOTES: Section 15(a), Rule 110 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted. - a)
Subject to existing laws,the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred.
Sec. 9, RA 8042: A criminal action arising from illegal
recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
offense was committed or where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.
Cabrera vs. The Philippine Statistic Authority
(2019)
G.R. No. 241369
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
DOCTRINES
●
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Sasha Cabrera alleged that she was born on
July 20, 1989. However, her birth was only
reported on August 27, 2008.
● However, she discovered that the date of her
birth was erroneously entered as July 20,
1980. Instead of correcting the error with the
Philippine Embassy, her mother registered her
birth again.
● Because she had two Reports, she had
difficulties in securing official documents. As
such, she filed a petition for cancellation of her
first Report of Birth before the RTC of Davao
City, which was granted.
● The OSG filed for a motion for reconsideration,
which the RTC denied.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT
● filed a petition for cancellation of the first
Report of Birth
RULING OF THE RTC (First petition)
● The RTC granted the cancellation of the first
Report of Birth.
RULING OF THE CA
● The CA granted the petition since Cabrera did
not take the proper steps to remedy the
discrepancies in her record. She should have
filed for a petition for correction of entry in her
first Report of Birth.
Instead of filing for a petition for correction of entry,
Cabrera re-filed the petition to correct her year of birth
and to cancel her second Report of Birth
RULING OF THE RTC (Re-filed Petition)
● The RTC denied the petition since it was the
Office of the Consul General of the Philippine
Embassy in Kuala Lumpur that acted as the
civil registry. The petition should have been
filed with the RTC where the first Record of
Birth was registered, which is Quezon City and
not with Davao City, where she resides.
● Cabrera filed for a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
● Venue is procedural, and not jurisdictional. It
only becomes jurisdictional in criminal cases.
● Improper venue does not equate to lack of
jurisdiction since the parties may waive venue
● Until the respondents object to the venue
being properly laid in a motion to dismiss, the
RTC should not have motu proprio dismissed
the case due to lack of jurisdiction since this
can only be done in cases covered by the
rules on summary procedure.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANT:
● Venue is fixed for the convenience of the
parties and their witnesses. As such, the
venue of the action is not limited to Quezon
City.
● Even if the venue had been improperly laid
out, the courts may not motu proprio dismiss
the same
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC-Br14 (re-petition) erred in
dismissing the petition due to improper venue.
RULING: YES. The RTC should not have dismissed
the case on the grounds of improper venue.
● In civil cases, venue is procedural and not
jurisdiction. As such, it may be waived. A party
must object at the earliest possible opportunity
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.
Failure to do so would result in the waiver of
the objection.
● The rules on venue are intended to provide
convenience to the parties. It does not relate
to the power, authority, or jurisdiction over a
subject matter of the action.
● In this case, Cabrera already pleaded
exemption from complying with the rules on
jurisdiction by filing her petition in her domicile.
At the time, she was only a student. Moreover,
there was no evidence that showed that the
OSG objected to the venue. This resulted in
the hearing of the first petition. Throughout the
course of the proceedings, the issue with
regard to the venue was not raised.
● RTC-Br14 erred in dismissing the re-filed
petition since it was established that Davao
City is the most convenient venue for the
party.
NOTES
● Motu proprio - (Latin for: "on his own
impulse") describes an official act taken
without a formal request from another party.
Some jurisdictions use the term sua sponte for
the same concept
Payment of Docket Fees
The Heirs of the Late Spouses Ramiro vs. Spouses
Bacaron (2019)
G.R. No. 196874
J. Jardeleza
DOCTRINES:
● What vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
the subject matter or nature of the action is not
simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but rather, the payment of
the prescribed docket fee.
● In resolving the issue of whether or not the
correct amount of docket fees were paid, it is
also necessary to determine the true nature of
the complaint.
● When an action is a real action, the basis for
determining the correct docket fees shall be
the assessed value of the property, or the
estimated value thereof as alleged by the
claimant.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 filed by the heirs of Spouses
Alejandro Ramiro and Felicisima Llamada (Heirs of
Spouses Ramiro)
FACTS:
● Spouses Eleodoro and Verna Bacaron
(Spouses Bacaron) filed a civil case before the
RTC against the Heirs of Spouses Ramiro.
● In their amended complaint, Spouses Bacaron
claimed that the heirs’ father (Alejandro) was
the registered owner of Lot 329, Cad-600.
● Alejandro and his wife Felicisima then sold the
property to Spouses Bacaron, as evidenced by
a deed of sale. Spouses Bacaron took
possession of the property after the sale.
 ● However, the property was earlier mortgaged
by Spouses Ramiro to the Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP).
● Spouses Bacaron then paid DBP for the
redemption of the property.
● Thereafter, the Heirs of Spouses Ramiro
forcibly dispossessed Spouses Bacaron of the
property.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE RTC: A civil action
involving causes of action for the declaration of validity
of the deed of sale or specific performance, and
recovery of possession, damages, attorney’s fees and
injunction
ACTIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF SPOUSES
BACARON:
● The main relief prayed for in their amended
complaint is one for the declaration of validity
and effectivity of the deed of sale and specific
performance; or in the alternative, that the
Heirs of Spouses Ramiro be ordered and
directed to execute the deed or instrument of
the property’s conveyance and transfer.
● Ultimately, Spouses Bacaron claim that their
action is one involving the legality of a
conveyance, which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, and involving specific performance.
● Under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, as
amended by R.A. No. 7691, these actions are
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
ACTIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE HEIRS OF
SPOUSES RAMIRO:
● The main thrust of Spouses Bacaron’s
amended complaint is the recovery of
possession of the property.
● Thus, the primary purpose of their alternative
causes of action involves title to or possession
of real property.
● This is allegedly evident from their amended
complaint which seeks, among others, to
cancel the title covering the property, to have a
new title issued in their name, and to place
themselves in peaceful and undisturbed
possession of the property.
● In view of these allegations, the court having
jurisdiction must based on the assessed value
of the property.
● However, there was no effort by Spouses
Bacaron to allege the assessed value of the
property.
RTC RULING: The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses
Bacaron. It held that the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint.
CA RULING: The CA affirmed the RTC ruling,
upholding the RTC’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE: W/N the correct amount of docket fees was
determined and paid
RULING: No, the correct amount of docket fees
was not determined, and thus, not paid.
● What vests a trial court with jurisdiction over
the subject matter or nature of the action is not
simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but rather, the payment of
the prescribed docket fee.
● In resolving the issue of whether or not the
correct amount of docket fees were paid, it is
also necessary to determine the true nature of
the complaint.
● In this case, the action instituted by Spouses
Bacaron is a real action, and not one
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
● Therefore, the basis for determining the
correct docket fees shall be the assessed
value of the property, or the estimated value
thereof as alleged by the claimant.
● However, again, Spouses Bacaron did not
allege the assessed value of the property in
their amended complaint. They also did not
allege its estimated value.
● As a result, the correct docket fees could not
have been computed and paid by Spouses
Bacaron, and the RTC could not have
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case.
● Thus, all the proceedings before the RTC are
null and void.
Manchester Dev’t Corp. v. CA (1987)
G.R. No. L-75919
Gancayco, J.
(Sorry, guys. Will edit pa! Medyo magulo yung case.)
DOCTRINE/S: A case is deemed filed only upon the
payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual
date of filing of the court.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Rule 45 petition for
review on certiorari
FACTS:
1. The case at bar was filed based on the case of
Magaspi vs. Ramolete, which was an action
for recovery of ownership and possession of a
parcel of land with damages.
2. Petitioners herein filed the present action for
damages and specific performance. The
amount of damages sought is not specified in
 the prayer, however the body of the complaint
alleges the total damages suffered by the
petitioners were over P78 million.
3. The docket fee paid by the petitioners upon
filing of the present complaint was only
P410.00 on the ground that it was an action
only for specific performance.
4. The under-assessment of the filing fee was
brought before the CA and eventually reached
the Supreme Court.
5. While the matter of under-assessment was
being investigated by the SC, the petitioners
filed an amended complaint, eliminating any
mention of the P78 million as damages in the
body of the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether the basis of the assessment of the
docket fee should be the amount of damages sought in
the original complaint or the amended complaint
RULING: The basis of assessment of the docket fee
should be the amount of damages sought in the
original complaint.
It is a well-settled rule “that a case is deemed filed only
upon the payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of filing of the court.”
The designation and the prayer in the complaint show
that it is an action for damages and specific
performance. Thus, the payment of P410.00 as docket
fee based on the complaint being one for specific
performance only did not vest the trial court with
jurisdiction over the case.
Neither did the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over
the complaint based on its amendment. This is
because there was no original complaint to be
amended in the first place (because again, no correct
payment of docket fee = no valid filing of complaint).
The order admitting the amended complaint and all
subsequent proceedings and actions based on the
same are null and void.
Sun Insurance Office (SIOL) vs Hon. Asuncion, et
al (1989)
G.R. No. 79937-38
J. Gancayco
DOCTRINE/S:
● It is not simply the filing of the complaint or the
initiatory pleading but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC:
FACTS:
1. SIOL filed a complaint with RTC for
consignation of premium refund on a fire
insurance policy with a prayer for the judicial
declaration of its nullity against Po Tiong.
2. Po Tiong filed a complaint in the RTC of QC
for the refund of premiums and the issuance of
a writ of preliminary attachment. (Civil Case Q-
41177)
● The prayer in the complaint did not
specify the amount of damages
sought, said amount may be inferred
from the body of the complaint to be
P50M.
3. Only the amount of P210 was paid by Po
Tiong as docket fee. Thus, petitioner’s
counsel raise his objection.
4. The Court ordered the records of said case
together with 22 other cases which were under
investigation for under-reassessment of said
docket fees, to be transmitted to the Court.
5. The Court en banc ordered the reassessment
of the docket fees and that in case of
deficiency, to order its payment.
6. In 1986, Po Tiong filed a Re- Amended
Complaint stating that a claim of not less than
P10M as actual compensatory damages.
● In the body of this complaint, the total
amount of damages sought to recover
amounted to P44,601, 623.70
● Judge Asuncion admits the second
amended complaint.
● Consequently, the respondent paid
the docket fee amounting to
P39,786.00.
7. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA.
8. Meanwhile, Po Tiong filed another
supplemental complaint for additional 20M
claim as damages.
● He paid additional docket fee of P80,
396.
9. During the pendency of this petition with the
Court, Po Tiong paid the additional docket fee
in accordance with the CA’s decision.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
 ● Filed by petitioner: TC for consignation of
premium refund on a fire insurance policy with
a prayer for the judicial declaration of its nullity
against Po Tiong.
● Filed by respondent Po Tiong: refund of
premiums and the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Petitioner’s argument:
● Lower court did not aqcuire jurisdiction over
the civil case filed by respondent on the
ground of non payment of the correct docket
fees.
● Invoke the ruling of the court on Manchester
Development v CA.
● The Court ruled that it acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon
payment of the prescribed docket fee.
Respondent’s contentions:
● Manchester ruling cannot be applied
retroactively to the civil case he filed because
at the time the said civil case was filed, there
was no such Manchester ruling yet.
● Invoke the ruling in Magaspi v Ramolete.
RTC RULING: ruled in favor of Po Tiong.
CA RULING: CA rendered decision denying the
petition for certiorari filed by petitioner but order the
reassessment of the docket fees to be paid by
respondent.
ISSUE: Did the Court acquire jurisdiction over the case
even if Po Tiong did not pay the correct or sufficient
docket fees?
RULING: Yes.
The Court ruled that the principle of Manchester could
very well be applied in the present case.
However, in manchester, the petitioner did not pay any
additional docket fee until the case was decided by the
Court. Thus, in the said case, due to the fraud
committed on the government, this Court held that the
court a quo did not aqcuire jurisdiction over the case
and the amended complaint could not have been
admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null
and void.
In this case, a more liberal interpretation of the
rules is called for considering that the private
respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by
the rules by paying the additional docket fees as
required.
Summary of the rules:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or the
initiatory pleading but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. Where the
filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee,
the court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered
filed until and unless the filing fee
prescribed id paid.
3. In cases where the trial court acquires
jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee, but subsequently awards
a claim not specified in the pleading, the
additional filing fee therefore, shall constitute a
lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the court to enforce said lien
and assess and collect the additional fee.
METROPOLITAN BANK v. PEREZ (2010)
G.R. No. 181842
J. Carpio Morales
DOCTRINE/S: The case would not be automatically
dismissed when the fee is paid within the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the
party involved demonstrates willingness to abide by
the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when
insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiff
and there was no intention to defraud the government,
the case should not be dismissed outrightly.
While issues on jurisdiction may be raised at any time,
anyone who assails can still be barred by estoppel if
he belatedly raises the issue and has participated
actively in the proceedings. He should have timely and
continuously raised the issue on jurisdiction.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS: Solidbank Corporation entered into a lease
contract with Bernardita Perez, represented by her
attorney-in-fact, Patria Perez, over two parcels of land
for a period of 15 years (from 1997). Solidbank was to
construct a one-storey building specifically suited for
bank premises.
Metrobank later on acquired Solidbank.
Metrobank sent a notice of termination of lease to
Perez effective 6 days from the said notice (this is in
2002). Perez then filed a complaint for breach of
contract and damages against Metrobank for
prematurely terminating the contract of lease.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Complaint for breach of contract and damages
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: In
Metrobank’s Answer with Counterclaim, it argued that
it can withdraw from the contract at any time since the
said contract did not prohibit the pre-termination by the
parties.
RTC RULING: The RTC ruled IN FAVOR of PEREZ.
The court ordered Metrobank to pay Perez the
unrealized income for the ensuing idle months of said
building amounting to P7,126,494.30.
Metrobank challenged this decision given that Perez
did not pay docket fees which makes the complaint
dismissible for lack of jurisdiction.
CA RULING: The CA AFFIRMED the decision of the
RTC. The court held that the nonpayment of docket
fees was justified because at the time of the filing and
payment, the period that the building would be idle
could not yet be determined.
ISSUE: Whether the case should be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction?
RULING: No, the case should not be dismissed.
According to jurisprudence, the general rule provides
that when the pleading does not specify in the prayer
the amount sought, the said pleading shall not be
admitted or shall be expunged, and that a court
acquires jurisdiction only upon payment of the
prescribed docket fee.
However, recent pronouncements of the Court provide
for an exception. The case would not be automatically
dismissed when the fee is paid within the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the
party involved demonstrates willingness to abide by
the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when
insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiff
and there was no intention to defraud the government,
the case should not be dismissed outrightly.
In this case, Perez could not have known the exact
amount she would be prejudiced as a result of the idle
period of the land rented. She could not have
determined this at the time of the filing of the
complaint. Any amount raised would be speculative.
The Court also held that Metrobank is barred by
estoppel from raising the issue on jurisdiction. He
failed to timely raise the same and he had also
participated actively in the proceedings.
The payment for damages was also removed because
Perez failed to prove the factual antecedents which
would allow her to be paid.
Baranggay Piapi vs. Talip, G.R. No. 138248,
September 7, 2005
DOCTRINE: The determination of jurisdiction must
be based on the allegations contained in the
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts:
● Petitioners filed before the RTC a complaint
for reconveyance and damages against
respondent. In the complaint, petitioner
alleged that they have the right to possess
over the parcel of land consisting of 3.2
hectares.
● Furthermore, it is stated that the said land has
a market value of P15,000 and that
Respondent fraudulently obtained title over the
said land.
● In response, respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the case since the assessed
value of the land is only P6,030, pursuant to
BP 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691.
● Petitioner then argued that RTC has
jurisdiction considering that the total assessed
value of the property is P41,890.
● The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. After the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied, petitioners
directly filed with the Court the instant petition
for review on certiorari assailing the trial
court’s decision.
Issue: W/N the trial court was correct in dismissing
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction (Yes)
Ruling:
● In resolving the case, the Court first explained
that the nature of an action, as well as which
court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained
in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted
therein.
 ● In this case, it was clear that the complaint
involves title to, or possession of, real
property. In such cases, the RTC shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction if the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000 or
P50,000 if the civil action is in Metro Manila. In
this case, not only did the petitioner only
alleged the market value of the land, the same
also did not reach the requirement under the
law.
● This rule requires that the assessed value of
the property, or if there is none, the estimated
value thereof, shall be alleged by the claimant.
Since, according to the complaint, the market
value of the land is only P15,000, the RTC
does not have exclusive original jurisdiction
over the case.
Foronda-Crystal vs. Son, G.R. No. 221815,
November 29, 2017, J. Reyes, Jr.
DOCTRINE/S: Section 7(b), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
as amended by AM No. 04-2-04-SC, which deals with Legal
Fees, to justify its reliance on the market value. Following
this rule, the determination of the amount of prescribed filing
and docket fees are now based on the following:
(a) the fair market value of the real property in litigation
stated in the current tax declaration or current zonal
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; or
(b) the stated value of the real or personal property in
litigation as alleged by the claimant.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for certiorari
under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Petitioner Glynna Foronda-Crystal is the daughter
of Eddie Foronda, the registered owner of a parcel
of land located in Cebu. The latter derived his title
over the property from a successful grant of a Free
Patent.
● In 1999, Respondent Aniana Lawas Son instituted
an action for reconveyance and damages against
petitioner Crystal alleging that, for 12 and 1/2 years,
she has been the lawful owner and possessor of
the subject lot.
● Son alleged that she purchased the same from a
certain Eleno Arias for a sum of P200,000.
According to her, since her acquisition, she has
been religiously paying real property taxes.
● She further alleged that the issuance of the Free
Patent in favor of Crystal's father was due to gross
error or any other cause. In support thereof, Son
alleged that there is no tax declaration in the name
of patentee Eddie Foronda and that this goes to
show that Eddie Foronda is not the owner of lot
1280.
● IIn 1999, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction, venue is improperly
laid, action has been prescribed and lack of cause
of action.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
action for reconveyance and damages
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT:
Petitioner contends that RTC has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter because the respondent failed to
allege in her complaint the assessed value of the
subject property.
RTC RULING: In favor of Petitioner because the value
of the subject property is P2,830 thus, jurisdiction over the
case lies with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cebu. MR:
In favor of respondent
CA RULING: AFFIRMED. RTC has jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the
case.
RULING: No, RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
According to Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as
amended by RA 7691, in all civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, the
RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction where the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 or, for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds
P50,000. For those below the foregoing threshold amounts,
exclusive jurisdiction lies with the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, or
MTCC.
Thus, emphasis must be given on the assessed values not
the fair market values of the real properties concerned. To
determine the assessed value, which would in turn
determine the court with appropriate jurisdiction, an
examination of the allegations in the complaint is necessary.
The rule is that the court should only look into the facts
alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within
its jurisdiction. Therefore, failure to allege the assessed
value of a real property in the complaint would result in a
dismissal of the case. This is because absent any allegation
in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it
cannot be determined whether the RTC or the MTC has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner's action.
Indeed, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed
or market value of the land.
Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in
the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its
jurisdiction. However, there may be instances when a rigid
application of this rule may result in defeating substantial
justice or in prejudice to a party's substantial right. In
essence, the Court said that the failure to allege the real
property's assessed value in the complaint would not be fatal
if, in the documents annexed to the complaint, an allegation
of the assessed value could be found.
OTHER NOTES:
Proton Pilipinas Corp. v. Banque Nationale de
Paris (2005)
G. R. No. 151242
Carpio-Morales, J.
DOCTRINE/S: It is not simply the filing of the
complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of the action.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
● Proton Pilipinas availed of the credit facilities
of Banque Nationale de Paris. Co-petitioners
Automotive Corporation Philippines, Asea One
Corporation, and Autocorp Group executed a
corporate guarantee.
● Proton failed to comply with its obligations with
BNP.
● BNP demanded the payment of Proton’s
obligations to its co-petitioners, to no avail.
● This prompted BNP to file a complaint with the
RTC against Proton and the co-petitioners.
● The Clerck of Court assessed the docket fees
at P352,116.30 which BNP paid. However,
● Proton, et.al filed a Motion to dismiss on the
ground that BNP failed to pay the correct
docket fees to prevent the trial court from
acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Motion to dismiss
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
● BNP did not pay the correct docket fees to
prevent the trial court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the case.
RTC RULING:
● DENIED since the docket fees were properly
paid for. The Office of the Clerk of Court did its
duty to assess the docket fees correctly.
CA RULING:
● DENIED since the Clerk of Court assessed
docket fees and BNP properly paid for such
fees.
ISSUE:
Whether the court does not acquire jurisdiction when
there is an improper payment of docket fees.
RULING: YES. The court does not acquire
jurisdiction when the docket fees are not
sufficiently paid for.
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of the action.
● The payment of the prescribed docket fees
vests a trial court over the subject matter or
nature of an action together with the filing of
the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading.
● The court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time if the filing of the initiatory
pleading is not accompanied by the payment
of the docket fees. However, payment must
not go beyond the applicable prescriptive
period.
● Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over
a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading
and payment of the prescribed filing fee but if
the judgment subsequently awards a claim
that is not specified in the pleading, or if
denied since the docket fees were properly
paid for. The Office of the Clerk of Court did its
duty to assess the docket fees correctly.
● In this case, the BNP relied on the assessment
made by the Clerk of Court, which turned out
to be erroneous. The Clerk of Court has the
responsibility of reassessing what the
respondent may pay within the prescriptive
period.
OTHER NOTES:
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. vs. Hon.
Legasto (2006)
G.R. No. 169108
J. Ynares-Santiago
DOCTRINE:
● Upon proof of payment of the assessed fees,
the court properly acquired jurisdiction over
the complaint. Jurisdiction once acquired is
never lost, it continues until the case is
terminated.
● When insufficient filing fees were initially paid
by the respondent, and there was no intention
to defraud the government, the court properly
acquired jurisdiction over the suit.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Petition for review on
certiorari filed by Intercontinental Broadcasting
Corporation (IBC-13)
FACTS:
● To put an end to the suit for a sum of money,
IBC-13 and Antonio Salvador (Salvador)
entered into a Compromise Agreement. It
provided, among others, that IBC-13 shall pay
Salvador P2,000,000.00. Consequently, the
suit was dismissed.
● However, thereafter, IBC-13 commenced an
action to declare the Compromise Agreement
 null and void ab initio. It alleged that there was
a non-existent cause or object, and it was
entered into without the required approval of
the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG).
● Thus, Salvador should return the amount he
received from IBC-13. IBC-13 also demanded
for exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and
litigation expenses.
● On the other hand, Salvador contends that
IBC-13 unjustifiably refused to comply with
one of its obligation under Compromise
Agreement. Thus, he filed a complaint for
specific performance and damages against
IBC-13 and a few of its officers.
● The two cases were then consolidated.
ACTIONS FILED BEFORE THE RTC:
● Two consolidated cases: 1) An action filed by
IBC-13 for the declaration of the Compromise
Agreement as null and void ab initio; and 2) An
action for specific performance and damages
against IBC-13.
● This was followed by a motion filed by IBC-13.
The motion was styled as one for dismissal
and suspension of all proceedings in the
consolidated cases.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF IBC-13:
● Rather than for specific performance and
damages, Salvador’s cause of action was
really one for sum of money.
● Given the totality of Salvador’s claim, his
unpaid docket fees is P5,452,237.50.
However, he only paid that P8,517.50.
● Since Salvador failed to pay the correct docket
fees, the RTC never acquired the requisite
jurisdiction over the case.
● Granting that the RTC never lost its jurisdiction
notwithstanding the deficiency assessment,
the RTC should have at least ordered the
suspension of proceedings pending payment
of the appropriate docket fees.
RTC RULING:
● The RTC denied IBC-13’s motion to dismiss
and suspend proceedings. IBC-13 is estopped
from raising the issue of deficient docket fee,
due to its active participation in the
proceedings.
● The deficiency in the filing fees did not divest
the RTC of its jurisdiction. However, such
unpaid docket fees would be treated as a
judgment lien, if the judgement is favorable to
Salvador.
CA: The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC duly acquired jurisdiction over
the case, notwithstanding the contention that Salvador
failed to pay the correct amount of docket fees
RULING: Yes, the RTC duly acquired jurisdiction
over the case.
● Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time, but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
● Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over
a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading
and payment of the prescribed filing fee, but
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim
not specified in the pleading, or if specified but
the same has been left for determination by
the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be
the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his
duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
assess and collect the additional fee.
● In this case, at the time of the filing of the
complaint by Salvador against IBC-13, the
alleged unfulfilled obligation by IBC-13 cannot
yet be quantified in monetary terms. Thus, the
only basis then for the computation of the
docket fees are the damages that Salvador
prays to be awarded to him.
● Thus, the P8,517.00 docket fees that Salvador
paid were computed on the basis of what was
legally quantifiable at the time of the filing of
the complaint.
● Upon proof of Salvador’s payment of the
assessed fees, the RTC properly acquired
jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction
once acquired is never lost, it continues until
the case is terminated.
● Salvador’s payment of the docket fees, as
assessed, negates any imputation of bad faith
or an intent to defraud the government.
● Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially
paid by the respondent and there was no
intention to defraud the government, the RTC
properly acquired jurisdiction over the suit.
● Thus, the Clerk of Court of the RTC or his duly
authorized representative is hereby ordered to
assess the amount of deficient docket fees
due from Salvador, which will constitute a
judgment lien on the amount awarded to him
by summary judgment and to enforce the said
judgment lien and to collect the additional fee.
Spouses de Leon v. CA (1998)
G.R. No. 104796
Mendoza, J.
DOCTRINE: The action should not be confused with the
“value of the property” subject of the transaction The
assessment and collection of legal fees should not be
intertwined with the merits of the case or the end result.
FACTS:
● This is a petition for review on certiorari
● The Elyadas filed for a petition for the annulment of
a contract of sale of two parcels of land against
Spouses De Leon.
● Upon the filing of the complaint, the clerk of court
required the Elyadas to pay docket and legal fees
worth P610.00
● Spouses De Leon moved for the dismissal of the
complaint. They asserted that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case since the Elyadas
did not pay the correct amount of docket fees.
○ They assailed that P21,640 should have
been paid as docket fees based on the
alleged value of the two subject properties
in the contract of sale.
● The Elyadas filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss since the amount of docket fees was
assessed by the clerk of court.
Procedural history
● The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but
required the payment of docket fees based on the
estimated value of the subject property. A motion
for reconsideration was filed but was ultimately
denied.
● The CA ruled that the docket fees should not have
been based on the value of the subject lands.
According to the CA, an action for rescission is not
susceptible of pecuniary estimation.
● A motion for reconsideration was filed, which was
later on denied by the CA.
Petitioners’ arguments
● An action for annulment of the sale of real property
is a real action. Hence, the amount of the docket
fees to be paid should be based on either the
assessed value of the property, subject matter of
the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the
complaint.
Respondents’ arguments
● An action for annulment of a contract of sale is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the docket fees must be based on
the estimated value of the subject land [NO]
RULING: The Court ruled in the negative.
● An action for rescission of contract is one which
cannot be estimated and therefore the docket fee
should be the flat amount of P200 as fixed by the
Rules of Court.
● The CA correctly ruled that the action filed is solely
for annulment of contract which is not subject to
pecuniary estimation. Hence, the action should not
be confused with the “value of the property” subject
of the transaction The assessment and collection of
legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits
of the case or the end result. In this case, while the
result may be the recovery of the subject land, it is
the nature of the action for rescission of contract
which is controlling.
Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company, et al v
Jorge Valdez (2008)
G.R. No. 150107
J. Sandoval-Gutierrez
DOCTRINE/S:
● The Court ruled that it is a settled ruled that
courts acquire jurisdiction only upon payment
of the prescribed docket fee.
● An indigent litigant may be authorized to
litigate his/her claim even without the payment
of the docket and other lawful fees, insofar as
he complies with the requirements prescribed
by law.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: petitions for review
on certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS:
1. Jorge Valdez was a former unit manager of
petitioner.
2. Respondent filed with the RTC a complaint for
damages against respondent.
● He alleged that petitioners violated the
terms of the Unit Management Contract
by refusing to pay him his commissions
and bonuses.
3. He also filed an “Urgent Ex Parte Motion For
Authority to Litigate as Indigent Plaintiff”
4. The trial court allows the plaintiff to litigate as
pauper and orders the clerk of court to accept
the complaint for filing without the payment of
filing fees.
5. Petitioners filed their separate motions to
dismiss.
6. Trial court denied petitioner’s motion to
dismiss.
7. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with a
prayer of TRO with the CA.
● CA granted TRO
● But the CA eventually lift the TRO upon
the motion of respondent for urgent
notice of taking of deposition.
8. Petitioners contend that CA erred in denying
their motion to dismiss respondent’s
complaint.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
 ● Respondent filed complaint for damages
against respondent.
● Respondent also filed an “Urgent Ex Parte
Motion For Authority to Litigate as Indigent
Plaintiff”
RTC RULING: The Trial Court granted the urgent filed
by respondent for authority to litigate as indigent
plaintiff and denied the motion to dismiss filed by
petitioners.
CA RULING: CA affirmed the ruling of RTC insofar as
denying the motion of petitioners to dismiss
respondent’s complaint for non-payment of docket
fees.
ISSUE: W/N CA erred in denying the motion to
dismiss filed by petitioners for the non payment of the
docket fees.
RULING: No, the CA correctly denied the said motion
to dismiss.
The Court ruled that it is a settled ruled that courts
acquire jurisdiction only upon payment of the
prescribed docket fee. As the Court held in Magaspi
v Ramolete, the correct docket fees must be paid
before courts can act on a petition or complaint. But
this only the general rule.
The exception to the rule on payment of docket fees is
provided in Sec 21, rule 3, 1997 Civil Procedure
(please read this provision for better understanding).
Such rule states that an indigent party may be
authorized to litigate his action and is exempted from
payment of docket and other lawful fees.
The guidelines for determining whether a party
qualifies as an indigent litigant are provided in Sec 19,
Rule 141 of the RoC.
The Court explained that an indigent litigant is not
really a pauper, but is properly a person who is an
indigent although not a public charge, meaning
that he has no property or income sufficient for his
support aside from his labor.
Petitioner is contending that respondent’s ex parte
motion to litigate as an indigent is defective since it
was not accompanied or supported by the affidavits of
his children, the immediate members of his family.
● The Court ruled that Sec 19 clearly states that
it is the litigant alone who shall execute the
affidavit.
● The rule does not require all members of
the litigant’s immediate family must
likewise execute sworn statements in
support of the petition.
LU v. LU (2009)
G.R. No. 153690
J. Nachura
DOCTRINE/S: A court acquires jurisdiction over a
case only upon the payment of the prescribed fees.
Hence, without payment of the correct docket fees, the
trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over the action
filed.
CASE FILED BEFORE THE SC: Motion for
Reconsideration for the three consolidated cases
dismissed by the SC (the SC ruled in favor of David
Lu)
FACTS: David Lu et al. filed with the RTC a complaint
against Lu YM father and sons for declaration of nullity
of share issue, receivership, and dissolution.
The alleged subject of the suit was the 600,000
unsubscribed and unissued shares issued by Lu YM
father and sons for less than their actual value.
ACTION FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT:
Complaint for declaration of nullity of share issue,
receivership, and dissolution
RTC RULING: The RTC ruled in favor of David Lu
and placed the corporation under receivership.
CA RULING: REVERSED the decision of the RTC and
ruled in favor of Lu YM father and sons.
ACTION AND CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT: In
Lu YM father and sons’ motion for reconsideration,
they claim that David Lu committed fraud when he
applied for lis pendens for several real properties
owned. This shows that he has real properties that
should also be the subject of the suit. David Lu did not
declare this which caused them to pay a smaller
amount of docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over
the suit?
RULING: No, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
the suit.
A court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the
payment of the prescribed fees. Hence, without
payment of the correct docket fees, the trial court will
not acquire jurisdiction over the action filed.
In another case, the Court held that this general rule
will not apply if insufficient filing fees are initially paid
by the plaintiffs and there is no intention to defraud the
government.

Here, there was fraud on the part of David Lu. By

applying for lis pendens, he acknowledged that the
complaint they had filed affected title to or a right to
possession of real properties. At the very least, they
must have been fully aware that the docket fees would
be based on the value of the realties involved. The
silence or inaction of David Lu et al. to correct the
computation on the docket fees hardly constitute good
faith on their part.

Hence, the case should be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

OTHER NOTES:

The Court also held that the Lu YM father and sons

are not estopped from claiming the lack of jurisdiction
of the court since they have raised this issue since
their appeal before the CA. There was no
unreasonable inaction on their part.